The author of this article expresses the views of such a well-known philosopher as Karl Marx. The researcher begins with the description of the time Karl Marx lived, which was in the 19th century. The 19th century is known as a period when capitalism was the main issue of discussion in the field of economy. According to the narrator, Karl Marx had a specific definition of human nature. In the article, the author explores Karl Marx’s concerns on the impacts of social class on human nature. He expounds on how social class could contribute immensely to depriving an individual’s human nature.
The author of the article further advances on how many people viewed Karl Marx. For instance, the narrator describes the philosopher as an original thinker loaded with the wrong ideas. The views of Karl Marx were greatly influenced by his support of communism. Many people link communism with wrong predictions of the future, hence disapproving Karl Marx’s philosophy.
However, in the article, the narrator points out how Karl Marx contributed positively to the society, based on the belief that he concerned about the involvement of both the social and the economic factors in shaping an individual. According to Karl Marx, a supportive society has great influence on the well-being of a person.
In the article, the author further focuses on how alienation contributed to the altering of human nature based on Karl Marx’s ideas. According to him, alienation is a condition when a person loses connection with the society, which results in one being incompetent in some situations. For instance, the loss of supportive social environment greatly hampers with the standards of an individual due to development of the feeling of inferiority within an individual in the society. Karl Marx also argued that differences between consumers and producers could result in denaturing of human nature. In addition he argued that most consumers depended on producers for survival, which resulted in a negative effect on the producer. He also blamed the producers of their overworking acts that contributed to the loss of balance in the society.
According to Karl Marx, the existence of imbalance between the producers and consumers was also present in working environments affecting both the employers and the employees. He also claimed that the employers depended on their employees in satisfying their daily demands disregarding human nature. According to Karl Marx, exploitation was another form of alienation because it freed capitalists from proletariats.
Karl Marx further argued that to achieve a balanced life, the product of the producer should be fully paid. He defined product as the sum of the used raw materials with labor inputted by the producer. For instance, Karl Marx argued that an independent worker had the potential of enjoying a balanced life due to observance of both the process of production as part of his/her property. On the other hand, he concluded that employed workers had different views of their lives because of their negative perception of the activities they had done under the control of their employers. In the article, equitability is further explained as the only element that could do away with the alienation in societies.
The author concludes by expounding the argument made by Karl Marx concerning division of labor. According to the philosopher, specializations in different fields immensely contributed to bridging the gap between the different social classes. Individuals needed to have specific skills to create an appropriate atmosphere convenient for all the people. He further argued that equity in earnings would greatly contribute to filling the psychological differences among the people.
Karl Marx with his expertise in politics was able to determine certain differences between capitalism and communism that later on defined boundaries between major super powers of the world. Capitalism, according to Karl Marx (1996) is the weakened method of analyzing democracy as it never pertains to the provisioning of democracy, no matter how much the capitalist describe their actions to be more of a democratic.
Most of the western countries are capitalist, i.e. the system of privatization. According to Karl (1996) this system is unjustified because it doesn’t provide the equality and same civil rights for all the citizens. The reason he stated for this argument was his approach towards the agents that bring the money to the society. He looked towards the low level labor force that most of times is relieved from their rights. The wages are too low and as the owner has been given the right to control, he just dictates his terms on this labor.
Thus when a person is involved in laboring, he usually is subjected to only his wage which is pretty low. The class system develops as a result and certainly the equality of the capital remains unequal with the owner getting all the benefits and laboring force getting nothing from it (Dahl, 2000). On the other hand, he believed that communism offers much more democratic rights to the people. Karl stated that capitalist countries often make certain claims that people can do whatever they want to do (Karl, 1996).
Also they can be sure of their requirements as well but Karl objected this notion in practical analysis. He stated that it is not what capitalism offers. Capitalism on paper makes everything to work according to plan but it doesn’t offer anything. Take example of United States, where the class system obliges various constraints on the people living. The social discrimination is high above the sky.
People work fulltime, part time but they are unable to bear their expenses, the health care is provided to those who are rich and have enough money to pay for the insurance. Large entities can determine their own policies and impact the government policy as well. What kind of democracy is this? Karl justified his argument by describing the practical approach rather than emphasizing on the voting system and allowing voters to vote for whomever they want (Wolff, 2003).
Capitalism has been there for many years now right from early to Middle Ages. The history analysis will prove that nothing was special about it as the same principle of democracy was only effective until the selection process (Dahl, 1991). After that process, the government or governing body was unaware of the lives the people are living.
Communism on the other hand has been a relatively new concept. The uniformity of power is the main essence of communism. Karl in his definition of communism, forced to view the role of the agent, i.e. the persons who work for an organization (Wolff, 2003). According to the communism theory, the workers are the owners (Wolff, 2003). They will get what they need and they will give what others need.
This is the social system which is based on no discrimination and with full civil rights. The people can do fishing in the morning and boating in the evening without ever being fisherman and boatman at all. They know that they will get what they need in the time of distress and they know what other people need and they give them that as well. This is the basic classification of communism and very effective mode of democracy which is absent in the capitalism concepts.
The exploitation of workers by capitalism is removed in the communism, as stated by Karl (1996). The socialist state can only remain dream if not worked out entirely. The formation of new man and woman is very important indeed in order to stay put. Communism doesn’t have anything of democracy in it but rather communism is the base of democracy. Communist states follow strict rules for justice but capitalist who follow the democratic rules are not effective at all.
According to Karl (1996) the human freedom is basic realization of the social state. Social class system is the alienation of the human beings from each other.
Marx also stated that human freedom is not about absence of restraints but actions with content (1996). People should not be dictated to what to do and what not do as the capitalist do, but they have the right to analyze their own ideas and generate the right path for them as they like. He argued that the important discrepancy in the capitalism is that they have made the main agent, worker, to become a victim of social class system.
The fair share of profit for the worker is out of question which leads to the economic downfalls. Marxism says that the conflicts arise because of the discrimination and the whole thing will move a capitalist society towards the communist society. Though there are various steps involved in the process. According to Karl (1996) the conversion is not that simple and is continuous with time and events.
When the conflicts arise, the productive property becomes common rather having a sole owner but still some class difference will continue to take place. This phase will make the capitalist society a social society. As the time will pass, this society will become a fully functional communist society. Therefore it is quite easy to state that the communism is naturally the best way of operating the society.
Soviet Union is the biggest state formed on the theology of communism. Various forms of communisms have been implemented at various stages though Marxism is the basic theory. After the success in World War II, Soviet Union emerged as a successful state by forming industries.
The main point, however, was the collectivization where Karl always emphasized (McLellan, 1971). At that period more than one third of the countries followed communism as the mode of government rather of it being a theory. Even after the fall of Soviet Empire, the countries that were present in Soviet Bloc still practice communism because they are well known with the benefits of being a part of a society that is fully functional and responsible for its dwellers.
The democratic states of the world, however, cannot agree with Karl Marx and his theory. Even if the things are seen practically, their point of reference will remain the same which is that they allow the people to choose whoever they want. This is the complete definition of the democracy regardless of what happens afterwards. If we critically analyze the situation around the world, the communist states are being tagged as fallen under the dictators.
The closer look will help us find the truth that the people are relevantly living a pleasant life, pleasant in the sense that every one of those comes under the same class system and has the same benefits and needs (Held, 2006). This is where the socially responsible society comes to surface. The true democracy can only be held when the communism is followed. Karl Marx has justified the approval of communism by some very important functional points which stand in front of all the democratic countries (Maguire, 1978).
Capitalism is only the searching and acquiring of the capital and its sources and it cannot be prevailed to be working as the sole mode of government in any country as it doesn’t offer the same kind of social and justice system in any kind. The capitalist governments only invest where they can have profits but not where the people need it. The largest entities nowadays belong to USA which can clearly describe the inequality in the uniformity of the capital.
A large population still is living a low standard life including the discrimination and racism between different races. How can this be called a democratic society where people are staggeringly behind their neighbors? Karl Marx was true in his believing because he was looking towards a system which is flawless and offers much more flexibility to its population (Maguire, 1978). The arguments of Karl greatly describe communism as the best way for democracy which capitalist states cannot offer.
List of References
Dahl, Robert A., 2000. On Democracy. New York: Yale University Press.
Dahl, Robert A., 1991. Democracy and its Critics. New York: Yale University Press.
Hegel Idealism vs Marx Materialism: Essay Introduction
Many scholars have considered Karl Marx a left-wing Hegelian philosopher. This is due to his disagreement with Hegel over the view that the driving force in human life is based on the academic competency or religion. Hegel observed that this was needed for connectivity, something that Marx opposed vehemently.
In this regard, it is established that the basic difference between Hegel and Marx is based on God and material goods. On his part, Hegel believed that God was in charge of everything in the world. He was in charge of people’s destinies. Marx replaced God with power and ownership of property.
The major difference between the two philosophers relates to the utilization of property. Marx believed that the rich in society utilize wealth to subjugate and dominate the poor. Hegel viewed property as the means to ends meaning that each person should possess property in order to fulfill his or her needs.
This paper will therefore compare the reasoning of the two philosophers based on the dialectical method. The two philosophers concur that an individual needs property in society but they differ over the use and acquisition of property.
Difference between Hegel and Marx
In the first place, the two classical philosophers differ over conceptualization of philosophy. Hegel viewed philosophy as an activity of thought, self-enclosed and independent. In this sense, the main function of philosophy is to document what has happened in the world.
Hegel thought that offering a clarification to a particular event meant explaining it in terms of coherent inevitability. In this case, the event or an occurrence is to be explained within its immediate context. Through this, the meaning of various events could be offered to various philosophical occurrences.
Furthermore, the philosopher can only offer meaning to what has already occurred but not to what is about to occur. Hegel believed that offering meaning to various events needed the presence of God, spirit and the mind (Coplestone, 1999).
This can be interpreted to mean that philosophy is self-comprehending and truth is only arrived at through God’s assistance. In comparison to Marx’s comprehension of philosophy, Hegel’s reasoning is rationally retrospective.
Marx believed that social conditions and materials determine the position of individuals in society. God has nothing to do with the living standards of people. The rich are responsible for the poverty that rocks the unfortunate in society.
Marx considered Hegel’s explanation a teleological metaphysics that only justifies human problems through religion. Hegel could explain poverty as a punishment from God. Marx could view the same as part of the process of capitalism.
In trying to extrapolate how alienation affects the lives of individuals, Hegel utilized a dialectical method to show how human consciousness is a process that develops from simple to a more multifaceted process. He noted that human mind grows procedurally to adopt the changing events in the world.
In this view, some individuals are more active than others hence the less powerful in terms of reasoning are dominated and estranged (Coplestone, 1999). Human mind has grown from what it used to be to grasp the existing nature of objects.
Through this, human beings are more aware about their environment. He noted that philosophy evolves through the same dialectical method. What a certain generation holds as true is further disputed by the new generation hence generating new ideas in society.
Although Marx had the same perspective as that of Hegel, Marx is more materialistic than Hegel who was an idealist. Hegel observed that ideology is the most important aspect of human history. Human beings utilize ideas to dominate and suppress others in society.
Ideology helps an individual to comprehend truth in society. Marx believed that societies could only be understood in terms of material possessions. Marx saw history as a revolution in the modes of production. The history changed from feudal mode of production to the current capitalistic mode.
In the current mode, human life is characterized by competition, subjugation, pauperization and hopelessness. All these can only be rectified through a revolution. The proletariat should rise up against the bourgeoisie and claim leadership.
For Hegel, the lives of people in society are influenced by objects, which are needed in case life is to proceed well. The same objects are the major causes of alienation. The objects are needed by individuals to accomplish their tasks. Without the objects, people can do nothing to satisfy their needs.
Therefore, the religious leaders utilize the objects to dominate and suppress the poor (Marx, 1988). From Hegel’s analysis, it is evident that alienation is inevitable in human history. Alienation is natural to human beings, which is shaped by objects. The objects keep on changing in shape and form.
It reaches a time when human beings dispute the existing structure by arguing that some objects are unnecessary. Alienation to Marx does not pertain to human objects instead, it relates to production of goods and services in society. It is more concerned about ownership of the means of production.
Hegel observed that labor was a positive activity in human history. However, Marx differed with him since labor is evil meaning that it causes alienation and domination in society (Polanyi, 2006). In fact, to Marx, labor is the main cause of alienation.
Hegel viewed alienation to be inherently in people but Marx narrowed it down to an individual. An individual is alienated from his own activities since he or she does not have any time to conduct private activities apart from animal related ones such as eating, sleeping and procreating.
Hegel and Marx: Similarities
The two philosophers pointed out that the worker is alienated in four ways, one being alienation from the product. Although workers are the direct producers of goods, they are slaves of the goods they produce. The produced good has more value as compared to the worker because goods are to be offered maximum security and stored in safe places.
Workers produce goods that they do not consume meaning they produce for others. The increase in product value decreases the viability of workers. The worker ends up being treated in the same way as goods implying that goods and workers are treated as equals.
Workers are perpetually pushed to the periphery leading to alienation from the process of production (Coplestone, 1999). The way workers relate to the whole process of production leaves a lot to be desired because the relationship is unnatural and uncalled for.
The workers never find satisfaction because they satisfy the interests of other individuals (Capitalists). The worker views the whole process of production as forced labor because actually it is inhuman. The worker ends up being alienated from the self because of the last two forms of alienation.
The worker portrays two personalities. One is the feeling of belonging to capitalism because the worker is separated from real consciousness. On the other hand, workers perceive themselves as human beings.
References
Coplestone, C (1999). A history of philosophy. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Marx, K. (1988). The Communist Manifesto. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Polanyi, K. (2006). Primitive, archaic, and modern economies. Michigan: Beacon Press.
Freedom or liberty is now seen as the fundamental right of a person in the majority of countries on the planet. Liberty is seen as the foundation of an ideal society that is usually associated with democracy. The concepts of liberty and the nature of an ideal society have been interpreted in different ways throughout the centuries. Modern definitions were not as universally accepted even several decades ago as they are now. This paper includes a brief analysis of the concepts of ideal society and liberty as defined by John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx.
It is noteworthy that both thinkers lived in Europe in the nineteenth century. They had rather different backgrounds, which could lead to the development of quite opposing views on the matter. Karl Marx developed his ideas regarding classes and conflict as the basis of the functioning of society. These ideas affected his perspective concerning an ideal society and people’s liberty. When explaining the nature of the Marxist approach, Engels claimed that an ideal society is one where “the modes of production, appropriation, and exchange” are harmonized by the state (712). Marx emphasized that individuals who produced labor ended up as propertyless workers, while the fruit of their labor became the property of capitalists or other persons due to different reasons. In the ideal society, the produced property should be distributed among producers.
This concept is seen by modern readers as rather a sign of a totalitarian society. It may seem that a person is completely void of liberty, in Marx’s opinion. However, this view is not quite right as liberty was one of the features of human society. For Marx, human beings were free as long as they could be free from the mandates of nature that forced people to seek food and shelter, as well as other commodities (Marx, “Capital” 441). Karl Marx believed that the “true realm of freedom” is human energy that is used efficiently to rationally regulate people’s “interchange with Nature” (Marx, “Capital” 441). Marx also stipulated that liberty was, in a sense, the feature that made humans different from animals (Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts” 74). People are free when they produce labor that exceeds their natural needs (related to the immediate satisfaction of biological necessities). At the same time, the state, as well as other external aspects, reduce people’s liberty.
The idea of liberty then constructs the concept of an ideal society. The ideal human society, the State, is the entity where people spend energy rationally to control nature and access the necessary resources that are distributed evenly among the members of the community. Such concepts have quite an idealistic nature and can hardly be realized. The distribution of labor based on the principle of absolute equality in a community where all members of the group contribute equally to its development has not been achieved in the world so far.
John Stuart Mill had another view that is similar to the values of modern western society. The thinker claimed that “[o]ver himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” (Mill 13). In simple terms, the person is free until their acts (or inactivity) can harm others in any way. The philosopher also emphasized that the freedom of speech, as well as diverse rights, such as the right to express opinions or practice any religion, were basic premises of a person’s liberty.
This perspective had a defining impact on Mill’s perspective regarding the nature of an ideal society. According to Mill, the ideal society is the one where persons “live as seems good to themselves, then… live as seems good to the rest” (15). Thus, an ideal society is a community where people are free to act to satisfy their needs but are responsible enough to avoid harming others. The balance between one’s own needs and desires and other people’s wants and needs is the background for an ideal society. These views are still relevant in the democratic societies of the world.
When comparing the two perspectives of liberty and ideal society, it is necessary to note that both philosophers find the liberty to be an intrinsic feature of a human being. However, Marx and Mill still view differently the way this feature flourishes and is perceived by humans. Mill’s paradigm is more conducive to protecting and fostering liberty. For Mill, liberty is an intrinsic feature of a human being who wants or rather needs to enjoy it by expressing their views and making the choices they want or find optimal. In simple terms, liberty is a necessity for a human being that is to be cherished and protected. Based on Mill’s views, freedom is equivalent to the life of a rational human, so people are bound to protect their liberty in ways so that they could ensure their living.
Marx’s view of liberty is associated with a need to struggle for true freedom in numerous settings. For Marx, a person is free when they can produce labor and use its fruit for their needs and desires. The thinker states that liberty is, to a certain extent, inherent in people, but it is always restricted by different forces and can hardly be attained. In a sense, the constant struggle is associated with liberty, so a person may feel quite reluctant to protect it. Freedom may be less valued if there is an understanding that it is not achievable. The very need to protect it becomes doubtful due to the associated uncertainty. Many people may choose to remain within limits created by others. Humans are learning to live and be satisfied within these boundaries, so their desire and need to protect their liberty reduces or diminishes.
In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that Mill and Marx viewed liberty as an important feature of human existence. However, the two thinkers offered different paradigms for realizing this basic need for freedom and building human society. For Mill, liberty is as natural as breathing, so people subconsciously need liberty and are ready to protect it. For Mill, liberty is something quite definite as it is the freedom of acting within the limits of the immediate personal environment. In simple words, a person can do anything until it can harm another person.
For Marx, freedom is producing labor and enjoying its results. In simple words, human needs to work to remain human being (as opposed to animals). External forces limit people’s freedom, so they learn to act within diverse boundaries set by nature itself and human society, the State. Mill offers a clearer definition of freedom and its value for a person. Humans need to protect their liberty to live, so an ideal society is a community where all members share this value. Mill’s ideas are the basis of the modern democratic society, although it is still far from an ideal world.
Works Cited
Engels, Friedrich. “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C Tucker, W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, pp. 683-718.
Marx, Karl. “Capital, Volume Three.” The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C Tucker, W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, pp. 439-442.
“Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C Tucker, W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, pp. 66-125.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, Utilitarianism and Other Essays, edited by Mark Philp and Frederick Rosen, Oxford University Press, 2015.
Philosophical thought has been developing for many centuries and has been expressed in many reflections and worldviews. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, one of the outstanding thinkers of the nineteenth century, reflected in his works a special view on such concepts as morality, religion, and science. Examining these concepts helps to better understand how ideas about the world and how everything in it functions are formed. Therefore, this academic paper aims to study Nietzsche’s philosophy, his attitude towards morality and religion, and compare his ideas about society with the concepts of Karl Marx.
Nietzsche concentrated his thoughts on the moral component of modern society, including the attitude to religion. In this process, he criticized the postulates of the European vision of morality and philosophical ideas, which were quite widespread at that time. It is noted that Nietzsche’s philosophical concepts are closely related to the concepts of existentialism (Veit 212). Thus, considering the moral components of society, the philosopher examined the good and the bad. Nietzsche did not have a clear and structured idea of b society. In other words, his goal was to break the idea that following moral principles brings good for people and society as a whole.
Moreover, regarding morality, Nietzsche believed that all normative systems have similar features. Hence, they all consist of descriptive and normative components that have certain functions (Ioan 41). Both of these aspects imply a description of everything a person encounters and imply that normative claims have an intelligent application. In addition, all norms and postulates of regulatory systems often prefer and extol the interests of a certain group of people to the detriment of others.
Regarding religion, Nietzsche held the opinion that religion is unreasonable and impossible to exist. In other words, he had an atheistic worldview and viewed faith as something unreal, invented by people. Moreover, the philosopher believed that society’s progress and scientific achievements contributed to the lowering of the role of Christianity and religion was a burden for society (Aguas 246). However, it is worth noting that Nietzsche was not a complete opponent of faith but only had a unique attitude to its postulates and treated it as a way of explaining such existential problems of humanity as death, pain and suffering.
Further, Nietzsche gained fame by developing the concept of the superman. The main motivation for the emergence of this kind of individual is the desire to gain leadership in society (Ojimba et al. 19). The desire to gain ultimate power makes such people indifferent to such concepts as morality, laws and illusions, which many people feed on in modern society. As the opposite of Superman, the philosopher singled out the last people whose main task is a simple existence. Thus, the structure of the world consisted of the struggle of the former for power leadership positions, while the latter played only the role of improvised means to achieve them.
One of the outstanding contemporaries of Nietzsche is Karl Marx, whose works had both some similarities and differences from the works of the philosopher. Hence, both of them had a similar attitude to morality and religion and treated Christianity as a faith based on suffering and negative experience (Janaway 67). At the same time, what distinguished these two philosophers was their attitude to society. Therefore, Marx considered the concept of a communist society, which Nietzsche, although he never expressed such an opinion, could have denied.
Within the framework of Karl Marx’s works, society was divided into two main classes. Thus, it had bourgeoisie, or capitalists, and the proletariat, or workers, who were characterized with respect to economic status (Marx 398). According to the philosopher, events occurring in society over the course of history led to this circumstance. In addition, the bourgeoisie was the ruling class, which prevailed and had much more power than the lower class of working people.
Nietzsche did not have an explicit position on what society is and what it should look like. At the same time, like Marx, he divided people into lower and higher castes, only with respect to the strength of people’s spirit and will, not economic or political status. Moreover, unlike Marx, Nietzsche considered animal nature as the basis of everything human and the activity of individuals. The power that individuals wish to acquire becomes the driving force for the functioning of a small number of people who are able to achieve and apply it.
In conclusion, this work considered the foundations of the philosophical thought of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, who made a special contribution to this science. Thus, he considered and criticized the concepts of morality and religion, which became widespread during his activity. Therefore, morality for the philosopher consisted in studying the bad and the good in the world, and religion was viewed as a source of suffering, which outlived itself with the advent of the scientific revolution and knowledge. Moreover, it examined the difference in the vision of a society of Nietzsche and Marx, who, despite similar opinions on morality and faith, treated society differently. Hence, the first philosopher considered the power and animal nature of people’s activity and motivation to be the basis for the division of people, while the second philosopher prioritized the economic status of individuals.
Works Cited
Aguas, Jove Jim S. “The challenge of secularization to the Christian belief in God.” Φιλοσοφια: International Journal of Philosophy, vol. 20, no. 2, 2019, pp. 238-252.
Ioan, Razvan. The Body in Spinoza and Nietzsche. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
Janaway, Christopher. “Attitudes to suffering: Parfit and Nietzsche.” Inquiry, vol. 60, no. 1-2, 2017, pp. 66-95.
Marx, Karl. Industrial Work and Life. Routledge, 2020, pp. 395-404.
Ojimba, Anthony C., and Bruno Y. Ikuli. “Friedrich Nietzsche’s Superman and its Religious Implications.” Journal of Philosophy, Culture and ReligionI, vol. 45, 2020, pp. 17-25.
Veit, Walter. “Existential Nihilism: The Only Really Serious Philosophical Problem.” Journal of Camus Studies, 2018, pp. 211-232.
Religion has been viewed as concerning the supernatural world with its entities and its relationship with the natural world. On the other hand, science has based its explanations on the natural world without appealing to supernatural entities and non-natural forces. The distinction between religion and science is based on naturalist’s principles, namely methodological naturalism, where limited scientific inquiry to natural entities and laws is commonly preferred, and philosophical naturalism, involving the principle that rejects the supernatural. However, there have been studies on relationships between science and different religions trying to merge them. Two philosophers and their theories about science and religion are discussed to display the differences. Science advocates for equality and religion, championing knowledge and morality.
Karl Marx, a German philosopher, is credited for the Marxism theory. Marxism philosophy was a scientific socialism since it offered an economic interpretation of history using the scientific methodology of dialectical materialism. Marxism explained the true causes of exploitation and further offered the scientific remedy of revolution and proletariat to cure the social ills of exploitation (Knafo & Teschke, 2020). This encompassed the struggle in society and the reasons behind class division. Socialism has been divided into evolutionary socialism, which wants to attain socialism through peaceful means, and revolutionary socialism, which is based upon violence and authoritarianism of the waged people.
The basic principles of Marxism are historical materialism, the theory of surplus value, revolution, class struggle, communism, dialectical materialism, and the dictatorship of the waged people. Dialectical materialism is a scientific methodology for understanding and interpreting history. In this, progress is described to occur through contradictions which further induce changes in progress and eventual development. Marx based the forces of production and relations of production as the main components of production. Therefore, changes in the mode of production results in a change in the superstructure, that is morals, religion, society, and values.
Historical materialism involves the economic interpretation of world history defined by four stages. Primitive communism is the earliest part where the community owned the means of production limited to self-consumption with no classes, properties, or states (Choat, 2018). Secondly, surplus production resulted in the emergence of private property and private ownership. Subsequently property-owning class exploits the propertyless class resulting in a slavery system. The third stage is feudalism (Astarita, 2018), whereby technological development targeting means of production further corresponds to changes in relations of production and the superstructure, with the feudal lords thriving on peasants’ labor getting a considerable share of the produce.
Capitalism is the fourth stage and is characterized by technological development accompanied by the mismatch between forces of production and relations of production. This is accompanied by the desire to maximize profits resulting in to increase in working hours and a reduction in wages. The theory of surplus value describes the manipulation in the capitalist society. Whereas the product’s value is determined by the amount of labor consumed in production, the wage in capitalism does not reciprocate. Class struggle has been described to exist in society, with all historical ages experiencing dislike between dominant and dependent classes due to the exploitation of the well-off. The property-owning class enjoys the product, while the exploited class, mainly the wage group, is just given enough for survival.
Revolution is another principle and has been described as a result of the class struggle. It is a short and swift affair that occurs due to the incompatibility between forces of production and the relations of production. Revolution thereby capitalizes on the mismatch where forces of production have matured and are not replicated in relation to production. The dictatorship of the waged people follows with the attempt to restore a classless society. State apparatus created to oppress the waged people will be directed to the oppressors (Boer, 2019). Communism finally emerges as a result of a rational social system that is free from contradictions and antagonisms. The resulting society is converted into the working class with no private property ownership and peaceful coexistence.
Spinoza, a Dutch philosopher, is credited with the theory of knowledge and moral philosophy. Spinoza described true knowledge as a source of liberation from the limits and imperfections of human existence (Renz & Hutchins, 2021). As a reward for the improved rational ability to check and control emotions and urges and a direct experience of the core of all reality. Spinoza’s ethic is based on five parts: God or nature, which he states to define reality. Second, the human mind is how it amends to the limited and unlimited essence and the existence of God.
Consequently, human minds are strengthened and thus know what they are and how they exist as thinking beings. In return, they deal with the effects thirdly and fourthly their strengths. The final part is to deal with the accompanying freedom.
Spinoza describes two ways of obtaining knowledge. Firstly, the geometric method, where the ultimate conclusion is used to build new knowledge from the already existing. This is evident in how he starts with God, the one substance that is everything. Secondly, perspectivism allows knowing how knowledge functions which also points to God, just like every other way of knowing. Three kinds of knowledge have been described, the first being on humans’ perspective on reality which is imagination, prejudice, superstition, miracles, prophesy, and revelation (Renz & Hutchins, 2021). All these are the primary source of rational enslavement and falsity. The second kind of knowledge focuses on overcoming falsity. This occurs by forming of notions that express the properties of all things and include intellection, common notions, and reason. The third kind of knowledge is intuition, love, and blessedness, which knows the core of each and everything in a way God causes himself to exist. It also endows us with a perceived finite form for all eternity.
Four principles encompass moral philosophy; substance monism, where Spinoza argues that there can only be one substance, God, and everything else is a mode of God, absolute and perfect. Necessitarianism argues that God could not produce things in another way than they have been produced. Conatus doctrine principle describes the nature of man of following things that promote his existence. The fourth principle is activity and passivity, which are treated as matters of degree, with God being active to the highest degree and humans partly active and passive.
Metaphysical reviews are based on ethics, a monistic substance describing all reality as one substance. Spinoza also identifies God with nature and defines the system of modes. First, the infinite and external modes follow from the divine nature of one or another of God’s attributes. The second involves the temporal and finite modes which inhabit the universe. In all, God’s existence is crucial to the existence of nature.
Based on Marxism philosophy and Spinoza’s philosophies, a preference for religion over science is inevitable. Marxism’s view of society was structured into two classes, one being exploitative over the majority working group. Consequently, they are left believing that it would result in a revolution. He champions human freedom through the satisfaction of human needs, securing possession, and removal of alienation. His definition of the class structure today is more complex as the elites are critical of the capitalist system. Marxism, however, can be used to interpret and change the world. Spinoza’s moral philosophy defines the essence of man to persevere in his existence, basically through the history of their relations. In context, joy and satisfaction are pursued over things likely to result in sadness. In addition, one ought to pick the battles wisely, explicating the virtue of avoiding danger and overcoming it.
In conclusion, Marxism constitutes the foundation of scientific and revolutionary socialism. More to class struggle, conflict, and the violent revolution, it also advocates for freedom and humanism. Spinoza, on the other hand, describes moral judgment grounded in desires or beliefs and advocates for obedience to the law even when considered irrational and a hindrance to personal good, for the alternative would be far worse.
Knafo, Samuel, and Benno Teschke. “Political Marxism and the Rules of Reproduction of Capitalism: A Historicist Critique.” Historical Materialism 29.3 (2020): 54-83.
Things change over time, but one phenomenon that will remain etched in the mind of people of many nations is the Communist Manifesto. It is a manifesto that persisted in the world for a long time without rivalry. It was unrivaled because not because it was so beneficial, but its popularity was pegged on the fact that the world at its time was full of brutality (Marx et al, 2002). Hence, between the 1970s and 1980s, millions of people in the Cuba Soviet Union, China, and the Eastern part of Europe were governed by communist rule (Marx et al, 2002).
Many other people in the world mostly in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern European countries such as Italy, Portugal, Greece, and France embraced communism in the face of the struggles and revolutions at that time. However, communism was not an icing on the cake in Western Europe. The countries in this region rejected it as being authoritarian (Marx et al, 2002). Looked at from a neutral point of view, the perceptions of people about the Communist Manifesto were diverse. The Soviet Union had used the system in the 1930s to find a solution to mass unemployment, at the same manifesto was considered to be a panacea to economic empowerment. Yet it was perceived as the cause of the “Cold War” that boiled in the 1980s.
Main body
A critical appraisal of the “communist” definition indicates a grim picture of how the system of leadership could have been corrupted to exploit the common man. According to Marx et al (2002), a communist is a person who has the advantage of clearly comprehending the lines of march, the prevailing situation, and the ultimate results of an action. This is in line with what the ideas of the proponents of the system were.
However, the English version of communism depicts it as a vast association of a nation in its entirety (Marx et al, 2002). Further, Marx et al (2002) were of the opinion that the shortcoming of the system is when the public power loses its character. In such an arrangement, there is a tendency to have the opinion that the development of one individual is a benchmark for the development of another, which eventually leads to laxity among some individuals. The endpoint is suffering to the people who are not ready to be “assets of development” to others.
Dostoyevsky’s (1965) story, Notes from Underground is a depiction of a suffering person in Petersburg, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union). The man in the story is forty old and has been unemployed for twenty years, though he once served in the government (Dostoyevsky 1965). The story is characteristic of the trends in communist leadership. One can surmise that such leaderships are associated with corruption and denial of other rights to citizens. This is highlighted clearly in the story: the man could be suffering because he failed to take bribes when he was working in the government. Not only is corruption a problem, but other problems such as unemployment and insecurity are also rife. The story depicts the man living in a shanty and having on an old dirty countrywoman as a servant (Dostoyevsky 1965).
There is a clear depiction of low education or illiteracy in this context. An interesting comment from the man is that people find enjoyment in their own degradation and that they should not do anything to shake off laziness. Quite a contrast to the Communist Manifesto in which “the development of one person should lead to the development of another.” How can development arise if people do not work?
The Communist Manifesto was based on the opinion that Karl Marx had discovered the law of development of human history. Thus those who opined with the connotation (Marxists) such as Bismarck and Engel in the German empire held the opinion that the manifesto was a document that they did not have a right to alter (Marx et al, 2002).
The Marxian thought was that society pits one generation against another and that in life there are usually two classes of people. As an example, at an economic level, the rich have a propensity to oppress the poor, while at the social level young generations have actions that do not please the old. In this context, Marx thought that there was an end to the process. The point was that at a particular time one major class would eliminate all other classes so that all people become equal (Marx et al, 2002). This point is reflected in Dostoyevsky (1965) where a man living in the low class is gradually being eliminated due to unemployment, poverty, and ailment among other problems.
Marx and Engel, the architects of the Communist manifesto could have had bright ideas on their assumption that when everyone became equal there would be no case of class. As a result, they thought, there would be no instances of warfare due to money, and that legal frameworks such as states and governments would be irrelevant in the world. However, the point they missed is that they did not elucidate which class would harmonize all the others by eliminating them. For instance, laborers would obviously not want to be eliminated but would want to rise and take managerial positions.
Furthermore, the Communist Manifesto did not foresee the advent of intensive use of machines in production, a situation that has largely instigated the segregation of people into classes. As the man in Dostoyevsky (1965) opines, science has succeeded in analyzing man, and freedom of will is nothing else. From this perspective, one can judge that machines, which are products of science, have dominated labor and denied man (especially the uneducated) a source of income.
While employment is hard to come by due to the aspect of class among people, those who are in employment usually tend to segregate the unemployed. Dostoyevsky (1965) illustrates how people in employment (especially in the public sector) work just for the sake of getting paid. They work only because they are employed and do not think of the clients whom they serve.
The Communist Manifesto’s perspective was that man could understand himself and organize himself in a truly human manner according to the demands of nature(Marx et al, 2002). However, this is not the point in Dostoyevsky (1965): The poor man is unable to get even basic services such as consulting a doctor. The mentality is that the poor man “has refused to see the doctor,” but the real situation is that he cannot afford the exorbitant cost. The point is that in reality, people organize themselves in a manner that suits them not really being mindful of what others are doing or how they are suffering. As Dostoyevsky (1965) cries out, people tend to be individuals with real individual bodies and blood, and this causes some people to stay “underground. ”
Conclusion
The Communist Manifesto was not a bad idea at least at the time of its birth. But it failed to address the individualistic nature of humanity. In the present time, it is obvious that there is no one phenomenon that will harmonize humankind in terms of class. Class is pervasive. No wonder some of the proponents of communism such as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are hitherto moribund.
There is no doubt that both The Communist Manifesto and The Notes from Underground by Dostoyevsky are truly remarkable works. They are sure to be discussed and argued in a decade, maybe even in a century or even in several centuries. If to take The Communist Manifesto only, it can be claimed to be an eternal work which has put its reflection not only on some of the societies in the world but somehow affected everyone living on this planet. One might agree or disagree with the ideas implied and depicted in work written by Marx and Engels, but the issues either stated or implied there are still being argued and widely discussed. One of the questioned issues stated in The Manifesto is human nature. In the book “Notes from Underground” written by the author living under a socialistic regime, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, in its turn, presents a problem from another angle, that is, from the side of its life practice. It seems that the author made up his hateful character with the purpose of making fun of some of the issues from the imaginary ideal society. However, it’s not a secret that both great and not very good life experiences that history gives us are set for people’s edification. Utopian communistic countries still remember how hard they tried to achieve the ideas and the radiant tomorrow promised to them by authorities. It is still can not be defined if these ideas were deceitful for both the authorities and people or if they were society-deceitfully oriented, but the fact remains that Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, and the Eastern part of Europe were governed by the communist rule, believe it or not. Many other people in the world, mostly in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern European countries such as Italy, Portugal, Greece, and France, embraced communism in the face of the struggles and revolutions at that time. The authorities believed that human nature is changeable and dynamic. Rather biased than an objective assumption, that human nature is adjustable, stated in The Communist Manifesto, makes people, who blindly believe it, find themselves in ridiculous, not acceptable, and sometimes even self-harming state.
In the first place, the point stated in the Manifesto is that human nature might, can, and even should subdue a regime of power in a country. Whatever the regime is, people can accept it and adjust to it. Finally, any of them begin to act according to what is better for them. They saw slavery or feudalism as an example of that. The same is the thought of Dostoyevsky’s character. He willingly accepts the theory and continues to develop it. As he considers himself to be a great theorist, he is meditating in his underground. The theorist made up by the author simply forgets that he is a part of the society, which is driven not by the same ideas as he is. Consequently, the character finds opposition of people who reject his type of behavior as unacceptable in society. He is trying to prove his theories, practicing them in his life, but he always comes to one and the same conclusion that he is not worthy and miserable. His theory breaks every time like a soap bubble as he tries to live it out. The same fate is in store for Marx’s theory in spite of the belief of making people subdue the brand new regime, new laws, and differently-oriented logic. No doubt that it is a regime to be transformed, not human nature.
In the second place, The Manifesto implies that any person can subdue nature and its laws. Giving an example of birds, which are occupied making their nests, or insects, which are involved in meeting today’s physical needs, authors of the Manifesto sought to build a society where everyone works, works for himself to meet his physical needs. So does the character of “Notes from Underground,” he is trying as hard as he can to live the life of an insect but fails to do that as he testifies in the book “I have many times tried to become an insect. But I was not equal even to that.” (Dostoyevsky, 15) People can not simply become like insects, birds, or animals, if the character had understood that, he wouldn’t have done many things, humiliating himself. He came to the masochistic point to enjoy toothache, any kind of ache, instead of going to the doctor. He mentions that several times “Next, you will be finding pleasure in a toothache! You will exclaim, laughing. “And why not? There is also pleasure in a toothache,” I will answer.” (Dostoyevsky, 20) For centuries people have been striving for the progress of society and were not pleased with the achieved results. So the next generations will do. It is extremely important to know that people would not stop at some particular stage of the progress.
In the third place, The Manifesto fails to take into account the complexity of human nature. Going by historical experience, Karl Marx analyzed the previous epochs in the life of humanity and seemed to see ahead to the future, taking some extra factors into account. Dostoyevsky, with the help of his character, ridicules the idea that people’s actions can be calculated or forecast somehow. The character is thinking of the matter in terms of mathematics, thinking that two times two makes four. There exists a certain term for that; it is called determinism, which implies that everything up to cognition and behavior, actions, and decisions of people can be determined by an unbroken chain of certain events. But no matter what the events are, one can’t say anything for another man; human nature is too complex for divining somebody’s intentions as they’re sometimes beyond understanding.
Making conclusion, it might be reckoned that being blinded by an idea expressed by a man, a person may meet unpredictable consequences. Adjusting human nature to some assumption of a doctrine is simply impossible as it is a stable, complex, and individual component of each and every human. Firstly, human nature does not boil down to always acting out of self-interest under Then; it can not be changed anyhow, can not be given the same status as animals and insects have. Finally, it is so complex that the things which drive people can not be made up or forecast, and the actions of people can not be determined.
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte was written by Karl Marx. This book is a logical continuation of his previous works that examined the history of the 1848 Revolution in France. The chronotope of the writing reveals the periodization of the history of this event, and the author considers the political occurrences that led to the takeover (Sperber 101). Notably, the issues raised in this reading are of an existential nature. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the main idea of the book by Karl Marx as well as the argumentation provided by the writer in proving his claims.
Main Argument
In general, the book is devoted to explaining the origin of the state turnover in France as well as its causes. However, the main idea of the work could be concluded to an understanding that the historical person standing at the center of this event was not distinguished by any outstanding opportunities and did not possess such influence to provoke the unfolding of events of such a historical scale (Broers 71). In particular, the author of the book emphasized that the capabilities of Bonaparte did not coincide with the actions that he had been able to perform in 1851. In this discrepancy, there were certain historical contradictions, which Marx tried to explicate.
Claims
Marx justified his position regarding the contradictory nature of Bonaparte’s role in initiating the revolution by considering the main aspects of this event. He argued that the revolution was the result of an aggravation of class antagonisms (Marx 63). Also, the intensification of the counter-revolutionary nature of the bourgeoisie was of great importance in the emergence of this process. The class renounced the form of their domination because of the fear they had in relation to the proletariat. In order to preserve their exploitative capabilities, the bourgeoisie was ready to give up their power to Bonaparte.
Marx also described the course of Bonaparte’s political action in order to explain that he supported the counterrevolutionary elements solely. For instance, the writer argued that the populist alliance encouraged by Bonaparte was distinguished by such traits as maneuvering between the classes and demagoguery. In addition, Marx characterized his activities as corrupted and noted that the leader used the tools of the criminal world (for example, blackmail, bribery, and so on) (Marx 45). Moreover, Bonapartism lobbied the interests of the bourgeoisie and resorted to terror. In particular, having analyzed the first months of this regime, the author had already noted these characteristics and contradictions in the Bonaparte’s course of action.
In addition, Marx reviewed the situation of the peasantry during this period. The group encompassed numerous amounts of people, which suggested great political opportunities for Bonaparte if he enlisted the support of this population group (Marx 6). Despite the fact that the peasants supported a conservative position, they also experienced revolutionary moods. People wanted to move from the conditions in which they were living and thought that they could solve their problems by giving their votes to Bonaparte. The peasantry believed that Bonaparte could achieve the overthrow of the bourgeois order.
Bonaparte’s Identity
A significant part of the book was also devoted to the analysis of the personality of Bonaparte from the point of view of philosophy (Ryan 101). Marx believed that this individual was a usurper in full measure. According to the author, Bonaparte could not be perceived as a decent person from the position of a philosophical understanding of this notion. Bonaparte did not possess the most important traits of character that could make up a skillful leader capable of initiating a revolution (Hazareesingh 121). In particular, Marx asserted that this man had no self-consciousness, responsibility for his convictions or conscience. Therefore, Bonaparte should not be regarded as an individual whose capabilities could provoke the unfolding of the events of such a large historical scale.
Other Points
In his book, Marx performed as a critic arguing against the perception of Bonaparte as of a historical figure who contributed to the emergence of the 1848 Revolution in France. The author suggested that Bonaparte should be regarded as a small-scale swindler who managed to get to the top of the state power. However, apart from these arguments, the writer emphasized the influence of the proletarian revolution on the bourgeois regime (Bideleux 211). He put forward a proposition that the proletariat did not break the existing military-bureaucratic machine but perfected it. Consequently, the role of Bonaparte’s personality in the history of France was strongly overestimated.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that the book The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte belongs to the scientific communism. The author analyzed the historical events and made crucial generalizations in order to explain the causes of the events of 1848 and 1851. This book is a remarkable example of revolutionary journalism. Due to the use of dialectics, the author was able to analyze the class struggle characteristic of this period, explain the causes of the revolution, and outline the true role of Bonaparte in the emergence of the counter-revolutionary event.
Works Cited
Bideleux, Robert. Communism and Development. Routledge, 2014.
Broers, Michael. Napoleon: Soldier of Destiny. Pegasus Books LLC, 2015.
Hazareesingh, Sudhir. The Legend of Napoleon. Granta Books, 2014.
Marx, Karl. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Cosimo, 2008.
Ryan, Alan. On Marx: Revolutionary and Utopian. W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.
Sperber, Jonathan. Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life. W. W. Norton & Company, 2013.
Karl Marx, born on May 5, 1818 In Trier in Prussia Germany, was one of the world’s reckoned sociologists, philosopher, political economist, historian, political theorist, communist and the pioneer of communism. He was a German but of Jewish origin because his father had converted to Christianity so that he could get an opportunity to practice law in the then racist German society.
He studied law and did a thesis of philosophy although he found himself in a group of Hegelian thinkers that dealt with political and social issues drawing him to communism. Marx was married to Jenny, a daughter of a Prussian baron, and had seven children but only three survived due to poverty and living conditions.
Marx worked as a journalist for a liberal newspaper in which he would publish his articles on economics leading to controversies and the paper was closed making Marx opt to move to Paris. While in Paris, he wrote an editorial that was about French socialism, and Hegelisim in Germany (Französische Jahrbücher).
He also wrote several manuscripts, such as the “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts” (1844) which were published a century later. He also met his best friend Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) and even wrote a manuscript with him. Due to their views they were expelled from Paris, they found their way to Brussels where he published the manuscript “The German Ideology” which was about the “nature of individuals depends on the material conditions determining their production.”
Marx believed in criticizing just about everything that was in existence and in 1848, he published his most popular and most controversial book ‘the Communist Manifesto” and it was not long after its release that the German revolution started. Marx had summarized the book in one sentence “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”.
This book led to his expulsion from Germany, and he went back to Paris where he was also expelled, and back to Germany again where he was charged for incitement and that was the routine of his life until 1849, when he decided to go to London. Due to the many revolutions that characterized that decade Marx decided to concentrate on understanding capitalism and economics (Cohen 1978).
By 1857 he had written over 800 pages of notes and short essays on capitalism, land, wage labor, the state, foreign trade and the world market but they were not published until 1941, under the title “Grundrisse”. In 1859, He published “The Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”, his first major economic manuscript. Marx explained his labor theory of value, his understanding of surplus value and exploitation which he argued would ultimately lead to a falling rate of profit and the collapse of industrial capitalism.
Marx continued writing and in the last years of his life he fell sick and could no longer keep the pace but could only comment on Germany’s and Russia politics and economics. He even predicted that Russia might move into communism directly without getting into capitalism for he was convinced the end of capitalism was uniting the worker with the means of production and Russia had communal ownership of land but unfortunately Russia ended up embracing capitalism just like other nations (Marx & Engels 2008).
Marx in his writings was trying to explain why the society behaves the way it does by studying its economics politics and philosophy. He explained the cause of social conflict using economics and concluded that social conflict was as a result of resources whose distribution is controlled by the economic system of a society.
He also concluded that interaction and integration in a society is determined by resources since people can only interact with people of their social class. Marx view of an ideal society is that which people own property communally; there are no people that are superior to others in terms of wealth, and that way there would be no conflict.
Marx major contribution on social theories was the conflict theory which he developed. The theory argues that the society is divided according to material possessions hence creating classes in which superior classes exploit their subordinates. He argued the organization of work in society was a major determinant of its structure, its economics politics and social life.
According to Marx there are two major classes of people in a society; the ruling class and the subjects. The ruling class owns the means of production while the subordinates have the labor. The owners of capital who are the bourgeoisies buy labor from the workers, the proletariats, at very low prices that do not match the amount of work they do hence making the ruling class to gain huge profits that increase their wealth while the rest becomes poorer.
This kind of exploitation leads to political oppression since the ruling class use their resources to influence politics and laws made so that they would stay in their favor. They are also able to get as many contracts as possible for which the subjects do the work. The intellectuals are paid so that they would write publications justifying the system hence making all ideologies and morals to support the class structure (Blackledge 2006)
He argued that capitalism alienates the worker from the product he makes, since the product sometimes could be worthy than the worker, they feel used and view themselves as objects of oppression. They also view their fellow workers as objects of labor with no other destiny and all this will result to disappointment and anger.
There will be therefore a revolution as the workers try to unite with the means of production and due to this tension, capitalism will collapse and give birth to a new society. The society will be communistic, Marx says that “the development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products.
What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (Avineri 1968). He also believed that new technologies would be invented leading to less man labor hence more cost and less profits and as a result there will be an economic crisis leading to the fall of major sectors and the development of others.
Marx also used capitalism to define and study history and he concluded that all social conflicts that have occurred have been due to resources and the forces of production. However, critiques have opposed this claiming that capitalism is the most effective and fair way of distributing resources.
Contrary, others argue that selfishness and the need to accumulate wealth is in the nature of man and that no economic system would change that Marx can be considered as the founder of modern sociology in collaboration with others social scientist like Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber. Marx died on March 1883, he was buried in London Highgate Cemetery, with only eleven people in attendance. He died stateless and his epitaph read “workers of all lands unite”.
Reference List
Avineri, S. (1968). The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blackledge, P. (2006). Reflections on the Marxist Theory of History. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Cohen, G. A. (1978). Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (2008). The Communist Manifesto. Rockville, MD: Wildside Press LLC, 2008