Category: Karl Marx

Machiavellis 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 Machiavellis 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 rulers opinion forever overrules anybody elses 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 leaders ideology of race. Another example is North Korea, whose political leadership is founded on sham political elections.

Machiavellis 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 mans 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 mans 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 anarchists view?

Both anarchism and Marxism are similar political ideologies or philosophies that emerged in the 19^th 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 Confusions 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.

Pojman, Louis. Ethical Theory: Classical and contemporary readings. Mississippi: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995. Print.

Quentin, Skinner. The foundations of Modern political thought. U.K.: Cambridge, 1978. Print.

Introduction

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 civilizations 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.

Lockes Ideas

For instance, John Lockes 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 someones permission³. From this political theory, the authority can be disputed using these very rights and peoples natural qualities. These ideas remain topical for contemporary humanistic society.

Rousseaus 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 peoples 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.

Marxs Theories

As for Karl Marx, he also offered some unique explanation of the nature of human beings, the roots of the states 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 peoples 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 peoples 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 peoples 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 Rousseaus 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 peoples basic needs. For this reason, it is possible to conclude that political discourse will remain divisive, and multiple vigorous debates will emerge.

Bibliography

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Early Modern Texts, 2017. Web.

Marx, Karl. On The Jewish Question. Marxists. 2019. Web.

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marxists. Web.

Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Discourse on Inequality. American University of Beirut. Web.

Selected Works of Karl Marx. Marxists. Web.

Footnotes

1. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Early Modern Texts, 2017. Web.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Jean Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, American University of Beirut. Web.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Selected Works of Karl Marx, Marxists, 2019. Web.
10. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marxists, 2019. Web.
11. Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question, Marxists, 2019. Web.

The function of religion is, in my opinion, closely related to peoples 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 Freuds and Durkheims positions.

Nevertheless, I would rank Sigmund Freud first with his ideas about religion as a persons 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.

Durkheims 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 Marxs 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. Marxs 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.

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 philosophers 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 Marxs theory. Notably, the philosopher defines social classes as such by property ownership. As noted by Rummel (n.d.) in his summary of Marxs 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 individuals concern, and when ones 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

Marxs 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, Marxs 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). Marxs 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.

Rummel, R. J. (n.d.). Marxism, class conflict, and the conflict helix. Web.

Introduction

Marxism is a social, political, and economic ideology pioneered by German philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in the early part of the 19^th century. This ideology interprets human development through the history from materialistic point of view. Marxists hold that materialism is the foundation of society since; human beings must satisfy their basic needs before embarking on secondary needs such as politics, arts, science, and religion, among others.

Since capitalism is a dominant economic system, Marxist analysis suggests that capitalism oppresses the poor and empowers the rich; thus, it creates two antagonistic classes in society, which ultimately lead to revolution struggle of classes. Rosenberg (2007) argues that Marxists perceive capitalism as a form of an economic system that creates inequality in the society by favouring accumulation of wealth and class struggles (p. 8).

Therefore, Marxist analysis of a capitalism system on the international scale shows that it entails accumulation of capital from the poor countries into the rich countries thus causes global inequality and class struggles among nations. The existence of massive global inequality validates Marxist analysis that capitalism enhances global inequality.

Exploitation of Resources

Marxists view international relations as a complex system of capitalism that has penetrated and integrated into every aspect of production in the world. Since the basic ideology of capitalism is to accumulate wealth, developed countries employed capitalism system to infiltrate into developing countries, acquire resources, and control various modes of production.

During the colonial times, developed countries scrambled for resources in developing countries and accumulated a considerable deal of wealth, for they did not only obtain raw materials for their industries, but also cheap labour.

Milios (2000) asserts that there was massive exploitation of resources from developing countries during the colonial period, which led to unequal development of nations across the world (p.285). Thus, the economic, social, and political development gaps between developed and developing countries are attributes of capitalism system according to Marxist analysis.

It is true that, after colonialism, developing countries attained their independence; regrettably, neo-colonialism persisted as developing countries still employed capitalism strategies by establishing multinational companies. The objective of establishing multinational companies was to control modes of production and create monopoly in the industrial sector.

Since industries contribute significantly to economic growth and development of a country, monopolization of industries, by multinational companies, provides an opportunity for developed countries to amass wealth, a practice that leads to inequality.

According to Walker and Greenberg (2003), monopolization of industries by multinational companies infiltrated the ideology of industrial capitalism that led into increased cost of manufactured goods (p.38). The cost of manufactured goods increased since multinational companies wanted to exploit industrial resources and reap huge profits. Ultimately, industrial capitalism resulted into global inequality as resources flowed from developing countries to industrialized nations.

Marxists also argue that global inequality occurs due to unequal distribution of power and resources among various classes of people created by capitalistic systems. Capitalism creates different classes of people because accessibility to income-generating resources or employment, determines ones capacity to emancipate from economic oppression in a capitalistic system.

Marxists argue that working classes are people who ensure that routine activities run in industries, for they perform activities such as producing commodities, selling, and managing organizational tasks under capitalist management that exploits them maximally.

Wolff and Zacharias (2007) argue that, from 1989 to 2000, interclass inequality in the United States increased from 30% to 42% (p.24). This trend is also similar in Europe since capitalist classes accumulate most resources with time. Overall, interclass inequality is increasing across the world since the current economic systems are virtually capitalistic.

Domination of the Markets

Marxists perceive globalization as a construct of capitalism that results into power and class struggles. Individual members of the society are competing for the available resources so that they can attain social classes of their choice.

Moreover, countries and mega-companies are also striving to achieve international domination by keeping abreast with the demands of globalization. Given that the global economy is subject to local factors such as surplus and deficits, consumers and producers, which regulate it delicately in the world of capitalism, inequality is a weak link that determines their movement.

Thus, from a Marxist point of view, capitalism is shaping individual, companies, society and countries through globalization towards power and class struggles. Kuhn (2011) argues that globalization provides capitalists with international infrastructure that they employ to penetrate countries and amass wealth through free markets (p.17). Therefore, creation of free-market provides a favorable business environment that allows free movement of goods, services, and capital; therefore, it enhances global inequality.

Since developed countries have a competitive advantage in the worlds market, they advocate for liberalized trade and free markets. According to a Marxist analysis, the wave of globalization that is sweeping across the world is preparing countries to enter into liberalized trade and free markets, which are very competitive for developing countries to survive.

In the liberalized trade, no one regulates the movement of goods and services since they self-regulate through forces of supply and demand. The forces of supply and demand increase inequality as essential goods and services will move to developed countries leaving developed countries with deficiency.

Heilbroner (1999) asserts that globalization increases competitiveness in local and international markets, which subsequently increases inequality in trade potential (p.9). Since goods and services from developing countries face stiff competition in the liberalized markets, developing countries fetch low gross domestic product and achieve low economic growth, which is a factor of inequality.

Also, human resources are critical resources that a country depends on because; labor plays a significant role in economic growth and development of a nation. In the face of globalization and liberalized trade, developed countries tend to lose labor resources due to emigration of workers in search of better labor markets.

Easterling (2003) asserts that globalization dictates market wages and the extent of brain drain (p.5). Massive brain drain towards developed countries is a major challenge that is facing developing countries since it slows down economic growth and development, and aggravates states of inequality between the countries.

Conclusion

The existence of massive global inequality validates Marxist analysis that capitalism enhances global inequality. According to Wright (1999), Marxist analysis concludes that capitalism system is responsible for enhanced inequality in the world characterized by class and power struggles (p.16). Through capitalism, developed countries have been exploiting developing countries directly, by accumulating resources, and indirectly, through liberalization of markets.

Direct exploitation involves acquiring of resources, monopolization of industries, and use of cheap labor, while indirect exploitation involves giving unfair competition in markets, globalization of markets forces, and brain drain. Under influential economic forces of capitalism, developing countries are disadvantaged and thus trail in economic growth and development. Ultimately, global inequality increases due to capitalistic economic system.

References

Easterling, S., 2003. Marxs Theory of Economic Crisis. International Social Review, 32, pp. 1-23.

Heilbroner, R., 1999. Marxs Analysis of Capitalism. The Worldly Philosophers, pp.1-9.

Kuhn, R., 2011. Karl Max and Frederick Engels: Manifesto of Communist Party 1848. Communist League, pp.1-32.

Milios, J., 2000. Social Classes in Classical and Marxist Political Economy. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 59(2), pp. 283302.

Rosenberg, J., 2007. Marxism and International Relations. University of Sussex, pp. 1-26.

Walker, R., & Greenberg, D., 2003. A Guide for the Ley Reader of Marxism. The Journal of Socialist Theory, 6(5), pp. 38-42.

Wolff, E., & Zacharias, A., 2007. Class Structure and Economic Inequality. Levy Economics Institute, pp. 1-42.

Wright, E., 1999. Foundations of Class Analysis: A Marxist Perspective. American Sociological Association, 6, pp. 1-23.

It is known that productively active persons enter the social and political spheres. It should be shown through practical approaches that there exists an association between a social and political structure with production. These approaches must be devoid of any disorientation and guesses. The societys social organization and state are constantly changing from the basic processes in actuality: the change occurs on their operation methods and production processes. This results in them working within certain constraints and presuppositions free of their will.

The creation of thoughts, notions and consciousness are initially intertwined with the material activity of human beings. This is indeed the language of real life. Creation of ideas and intellectual ability begin to be seen at this phase as the direct product of their material conduct. This argument can also be applied to mental development as evident in the sphere of politics, law, religion, physics and so on.

All of these conceptions, ideas and thoughts originate from human beings, christened real active men. The men are acclimatized by an assured growth of their productive abilities and of the interactions resulting from these factors. Insight can never imply anything else other than existence, and the existence of human beings in their right frame of mind and body. If in all philosophy, human beings are their situations are not upright as they ought to be, this could have some basis similar to their ancient life-processes.

Marxs understanding of human nature is based on the assumption that people are species beings. According to the Marxist theory, a man proves that he is a conscious species-being through the creation of a world of objects by his personal activity ((Wharton, 2015, p. 7). In other words, an individual treats other species as his object and treats himself as the actual, living species, which are universal and unconstrained (Wharton, 2015, p. 6). From this, it could be inferred that the critical idea of Marxs view on mans essence is that people express their human nature via creating products. Marxs theory of alienation contradicts the concept of scientific management because the latter deprives workers of control over the working process and makes them not independent actors but means to achieve the end of employees.

Regarding Hochschilds philosophy, it is essential to define the concept of emotional work. Emotion work takes place when people regulate their emotions to achieve specific personal benefits or goals. The idea of emotional work should not be confused with the concept of emotional labor, which implies the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display (Wharton, 2015, p. 31). Emotion work is not compensated, whereas emotional labor could be performed in exchange for a wage, meaning that emotions could be managed to satisfy an employers expectations (Wharton, 2015). Hochschild argues that the management of emotions in exchange for a wage leads to the transmutation of private life into a social one (Wharton, 2015, p. 34). Scientific management presupposes that employees should act in a way that is expected by the managerial personnel. Hence, they should manage their emotions and commit emotional labor that would lead to emotional and physical exhaustion, absenteeism, and a work-family conflict in the long-term perspective.

From my perspective, scientific management is essential for the efficient operation of any business. Although it is impossible to deny the validity of the arguments proposed by Marx and Hochschild, it is still true that an employers prosperity could not be achieved if his or her employees are working in unsuitable conditions for low wages. Besides, it is impossible to cancel all management in a firm because it would not operate otherwise. Therefore, even though I agree that under a scientific management approach, employees are treated as means of achieving the ends of employers, appropriate policies undertaken by a manager would prevent the destructive consequences of emotional labor proposed by Hochschild.

Reference

Wharton, A. S. (2015). Working in America: Continuity, conflict, and change in a new economic era. Routledge.

The Prussian philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a profound influence on the thinkers and philosopher of the early 19^th century. Hegel had complex and abstract ideas about various issues in philosophy, which were open to different interpretations.

As a young intellectual in Berlin, Marx was initially a Kantian like his father, and was opposed to the ideas of Hegel which were more in fashion in that period. After a brief period of resistance to Hegelian ideas, Marx became a member of a coterie of young radicals who have been variously called the Left Hegelians or Young Hegelians (Seigal 1973).

Hegel had espoused the theory that history was progressive in nature. According to Hegels belief human society had gone through different stages of progress for the purpose of reaching its final and most advanced stage. Hegel held to the nationalistic belief that this highest stage in mankinds development was represented by the Prussian state of his time (Ruhle 2005).

After Hegels death, his followers split into two main groups; the Young and the Old Hegelians. The Old Hegelians accepted Hegels controversial assertion that the Prussian state embodied the culmination of all human progress, they also accepted the idea that Hegels philosophy was in continuity with Christian theology (McLellan 1980).

The Young Hegelians on the other hand, while agreeing with much of Hegels ideas and his philosophical methodology, rejected the belief that human history had progressed to its apogee in the 19^th century Prussia. According to the Young Hegelians there was still a long way to go before mankind could reach its peak; they also were of the view that Christianity was essentially incompatible with Hegels philosophy (Bernstein 1971).

The Young Hegelians agreed that rational philosophy was superior to religion in understanding history. Some Hegelians, such as Strauss had a more charitable view of religion in this matter. Strauss believed that Christianity still contained elements of value to a philosopher.

He believed that once Christianity had been stripped of its dogmatic and ritualistic elements, philosophy could be used to reveal hidden essential truths about the nature of being. Most Young Hegelians were opposed to this idea and held that religion contained no objective truths and the central element of religion lay in human emotions (McLellan 1980).

Central to the Young Hegelians beliefs was the idea that religion was one of the biggest factors that prevented human civilization from progressing. Many of the Young Hegelians were atheists from a Jewish background and possessed a visceral aversion to Christianity and the Christian civilization, which they inherited from their ethno-religious background as well as contempt for their own religious traditions. Many of the writings of the Young Hegelians focused on the refutation of religion and need to replace religion with philosophy as the moral criterion for the society and means for understanding history (Carlebach 1978).

Among the Young Hegelians, there were many different ideas about how to go about replacing Christianity, the dominant religion of Europe, with philosophy. Bruno Bauer, one of Marxs teachers, presented the view that Jesus was not a historical person and they story of his life was a fabricated myth.

Other Young Hegelians were more subtle in their refutations of Christianity, Feuerbach expressed the idea that Christianity was merely the result of various aspects of a human psyche, for example humans fear death and Christianity teaches the existence of an eternal soul and bodily resurrection that serves to reassure its followers that they will not die (Ruhle 2005).

Many of the Young Hegelians held on to Hegels belief that a humans knowledge is limited by their subjective experiences and their perception of reality is created by their minds. In accordance with this view they believed that the liberation of the human self from religious doctrines would bring in an era of progress (Bernstein 1971).

Marxs break with the Young Hegelians occurred around 1844. In his Theses on Feuerbach, Marx charged that Feuerbach had not completely broken free from the idea that it is the mind which creates the environment. Marx asserted that the social order was the product of the relationship between the different social and environmental forces and religion and other ideologies were merely the product of human practices and not their cause (Ruhle 2005).

Marx maintained that true change could only come after human practices were changed. According to Marx, Hegelian philosophers separate thinking from activity, according to his view once philosophy is removed from practical action, it no longer represents anything real. Marx says: Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it (McLellan 1980).

According to Marx there was no real difference between the Young and the Old Hegelians as both of them accepted that ideas proceeded actions.

The Old Hegelians believed that ideas and beliefs constituted reality itself, i.e. it is a fiction to speak of objective reality as separate from ideological thinking, and the Young Hegelians on the other hand believed that ideas formed constraints and limits upon progress in the real world. Marx says that human ideas neither form the reality and nor can they constitute real limits on reality, since ideas themselves are products of the reality, a change in the reality can however bring about changes in ideas (Marx 1973).

The Young Hegelians also sought to bring social change in the society. They believed that they could bring about social change by effecting a change in thinking. They saw religion as the crucial ideology which prevented social change from occurring and concentrated their energies into removing religion from society (Ruhle 2005).

In contrast to the Young Hegelians Marx believed that religious or political ideologies were created by the ruling classes in order to safeguard their rule. He believed that the chief purpose of these ideologies is to portray the interests of the ruling class as the common interest of the whole society (Ruhle 2005).

According to Marx, the ruling class does not possess the power to perpetuate this fiction forever on their own strength, for the perpetuation of this fiction the economic forces which give rise to the ruling class must be maintained effectively. Marx believed that the key to social change depended upon changing the underlying unjust economic order of the society (Marx and Engels 1970).

Marx believed that once the unjust economic order was replaced by a just system, the religious and political ideologies that came about as a result of the unjust order would be destroyed as well. In the preface to his work, The German Ideology, he mocked those who attempted social change through attacks on religion, saying:

Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water.

His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence. This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany (Marx & Engels 1970).

Marx believed that a change in human economic relationships is necessary for social change. He gave the example of the removal of feudalism with capitalism as a social change brought about through economic change. Marx believed that this change occurred because people came up with new methods for production of goods and their distribution and created new ways of transportation and communication. These new methods were more productive than the old ones and thus were adopted and brought about a social change.

According to Marx, the adoption of these new methods allowed the introduction of a new social order. Instead of the old order where the feudal lords controlled everyone through violence, a new order was formed having two components; the bourgeois who own the means of production and the proletariat who have only their labor to sell.

Marx believed that since the actions of Capitalist societies leads to the organization of labor and led to the rise of consciousness among the lower classes, this paved the way for a socialist revolution wherein the proletariat would take over the means of production and social inequalities would be removed since the people who worked the factories etc. would be the ones who owned them.

A practical aspect of Marxs dispute with the Young Hegelians can be seen in how they proposed to solve the Jewish Question i.e. the problems resulting from the minority religious status of Jews in a Christian Europe. Bruno Bauer and other Young Hegelians touted the end of religion as the solution to the problem of Jewish dissimilarity to Christians (Carlebach 1978).

In his work The Jewish Question subtitled The Capacity of Todays Jews and Christians to Become Free Bruno asserts that once both Jews and Christians have renounced their respective religions there would remain no basis for the persecution of Jews and mutual enmity between Christians and Jews (Carlebach 1978).

Marx counters this idea in his work On the Jewish Question, asserting that it is unreasonable to suppose that a capitalistic society could get rid of religion. Marx argues that religions continue to survive in secular capitalist states and that such states are not, in their essence opposed to religion, rather they are designed to accommodate many different religions, instead of just one (Carlebach 1978).

Marx argued that the end of religion would not necessitate the end of Jewish people and the specific isolated nature of the Jewish community could be maintained without the doctrines and rituals of Judaism. According to Marxs understanding Judaism was an economic outlook based on the acquisition of material wealth on which the trappings of religious doctrines and rituals had be laid in other to justify it (Carlebach 1978).

Another aspect of Marxs dispute with Young Hegelians can be seen in his refutation of Max Stirners egoist philosophy as explicated in his book, The Ego and Its Own. Marx devoted a large part of The German Ideology to a refutation of Stirners ideas (Lobkowicz 1969).

Marx treats Stirners ideas in a very hostile and sarcastic manner, even while agreeing with much of what he has written. Marx acknowledges that the present economic system was unjust and had no way to deal with the problem of poverty. He also shares Stirners contempt for appeals to peoples consciousness i.e. asking people to donate to charity, as a means of dealing with social inequalities (Lobkowicz 1969).

Marxs main dispute with Stirner lies in the latters egoism. Stirner says that humans should reject religion, nationalism, family etc. and fulfill their own egos. Marx counters this view, asserting that just as religion, nationalism, family etc. are abstract concepts, so it the idea of an ego.

Marx asserts that a humans ego is itself a product of the different forces in the social system of a society such as the family, the society and the nation. Marx asserts that instead of having philosophies based on subjective concepts like ego, they should be based instead on the objective realities of human activities and the material conditions of a society (Lobkowicz 1969).

It is apparent that the Hegels ideas of historical progression and the Young Hegelians refutations of religion and other ideologies were a major factor in the formation of Marxs own ideology.

However while Hegel and the Hegelians were concerned about making ideological warfare and defeating the ideas that they believed were responsible for perpetuating injustice, Marx offered the insight that human economic relationships were the forces which created these ideologies and that the destruction of these ideologies could not be accomplished without destroying the underlying economic order.

While Marx agreed with the aims and purposes of the Young Hegelians, he sought to remove the subjectivity of their ideas by basing his own philosophy on an economic basis.

List of References

Bernstein, R.J., 1971. Praxis and action: Contemporary philosophies of human activity. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Carlebach, J., 1978. Karl Marx and the radical critique of Judaism. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lobkowicz, N., 1969. Karl Marx and Max Stirner. In F.J. Adelmann, ed. Demythologizing Marxism: a series of studies on Marxism. Boston, MA: Springer. pp.64-95.

Marx, K., 1973. The Holy Family. Translated by R. Dixon & C. Dutts. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Marx, K. & Engels, F., 1970. The German ideology. Translated by C.J. Arthur. New York, NY: International Publishers Co.

McLellan, D., 1980. Marx Before Marxism. London: Macmillan.

Ruhle, O., 2005. Karl Marx: His Life and Work. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.

Seigal, J.E., 1973. Marxs Early Development: Vocation, Rebellion, and Realism. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 3(3), pp.475-508.

There is hardly a person who never wished to see historical figures with his/her own eyes, to discuss their works and achievements with them personally, and to spend time sharing impressions about their studies. Sometimes it seems that it would be great for some of those figures to visit the countries they have never been to. It would be honorable and extremely interesting to take Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Robert Owen to such countries as America, Albania, and Cuba; they can further discuss the impressions about their trips as well as other issues with one of the modern politicians, Paul Volcker.

Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher, would benefit greatly from the trip to America. Smith was a philosopher but he was also interested in other subjects apart from philosophy. He used to pay special attention to history.

He was deeply conscious of the history he was living in; it is probable that he saw the human species as immersed in history at all moments of its existence; and it is certain that he contributed to the development of historical thought in new directions and the acquisition of new meanings by the term history. (Haakonssen 270)

America is a highly developed country which, like no other country, is able to demonstrate all of the modern achievements of humanity. Adam Smith would be glad to observe how much the world has changed since the 18^th century. The best place for Smith to visit would be New York, the city which experienced a great number of changes over the past decades. Smith, a pioneer of political economy, would be interested in analyzing the current economic situation in the country and, perhaps, even suggest ways for the country to overcome the economic crisis. I believe that Smith should be taken to America because throughout his life he traveled mostly around Europe, and it would be interesting for him to compare Europe and America from the point of view of moral philosopher.

Karl Marx, social scientist and philosopher of the 19^th century, will find it interesting to visit Albania, one of the smallest countries in Europe. As a historian, he would be interested in visiting numerous historical museums, as well as museums of natural history and national culture which belong to the greatest sites of Albania. Karl Marx spent most of his life in Germany and France; this is why Albania, which differs from those countries in culture, politics, and other aspects, is likely to appeal to Marx. As an independent thinker, Marx could forecast further development of the country and give some advices on how the country could use tourism for its development; this advice of his would be quite valuable because Marx was a person who could unite history and philosophy; he could work out a proper solution basing on the analysis of Albanias history and using both its strengths and weaknesses for ensuring proper development of the country. His advice could be relied upon, for Marx was someone whose intellectual achievements in economics, history, and social theory & resulted simply from following the empirical evidence, and the paths of independent thinking and theoretical construction. (Wood xi) Karl Marx should be taken to Albania because this country has not been yet strongly affected by globalization; the philosopher will not be astonished at enormous skyscrapers or extremely lively traffic, which cannot be found in Albania. A tour around Albania will explore the heritage of this country and find out about its culture which was strongly influenced by Turks, Greeks, and Romans.

Robert Owen would probably change most of his ideologies after visiting Cuba. Owens cherished dream was to create a utopian community which would be able to lead to an international social reform. Influenced by radical Enlightenment rationalism, Owen opposed revealed religion and espoused a conviction that human character is, without exception formed by ones environment (Foster and Dunnavant 143); he kept to the idea that social reform could be implemented if this environment could be controlled. If Owen was able to visit Cuba these days and to learn more about this country, he would refuse from his ideas of creating a utopian community. Creation of the perfect world and equality is unnecessary, since in the present community the countries which are more developed offer help to those which are not. Thus, Cuba regularly gets humanitarian help from its neighbor, the United States, the country which often offers assistance to the Third World Countries. Owen would realize that Utopia is unnecessary for the community seeking mutual help and understanding. Moreover, Cuba has a number of sites to visit. Robert Owen would eventually abandon his utopian ideas after seeing how much the country achieved without having a perfect community. Old Havana is a place he should surely visit, for its buildings, music, food, and especially people make it the most unique place in the world. After visiting Cuba, Owen will admit that people do not need any social reforms and a utopian community to live in harmony and to be satisfied with what one has achieved.

These three philosophers could have a lively discussion of different issues during the dinner with Paul Volcker, an American economist and a chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Since Volcker and Smith are both economists, they could discuss the ways to improve the economy of the United States. The value of this discussion lies in the fact that Smith could evaluate the economic situation in the country objectively and basing on his own knowledge about the economy. Going to basics proves to be beneficial in a number of situations; perhaps, Smiths fresh take on things could throw the light on what modern economists do not notice. Robert Owen could offer once again the idea of the utopian community which Volcker would definitely oppose. They could wrangle over this issue with Volckers proving to Owen why utopian ideas are unacceptable in the modern world. Finally, Karl Marx could use his independent thinking and adjudicate the dispute, expressing his own opinion about the utopian community. This issue is unusual for Marx who believed only in empirical evidence this is why the conversation will be extremely interesting for him.

In sum, Adam Smiths, Karl Marxs, and Robert Owens visit to America, Albania, and Cuba could greatly impress them and even influence the ideologies they kept to throughout their lives. Their dining with a contemporary politician Paul Volcker would be useful for each of them, resulting in philosophers changing their ideas about certain issues and Volcker getting an advice from people who are considered to be the greatest thinkers of the past. The philosophers advice to help the US improve its current economic situation could be valuable and could be used by Volcker for the benefit of the country.

Works Cited

Foster, Douglas A. and Dunnavant, Anthony L. The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Churches of Christ. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004.

Haakonssen, Knud. The Cambridge Companion to Adam Smith. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Wood, Allen W. Karl Marx. Routledge, 2004.

Introduction

Great philosophical thinkers like Rene Descartes and Karl Marx made significant contributions to the modern knowledge, especially philosophy. The massive philosophical Knowledge we have today is based on theories and hypotheses derived from some of their great works. Rene Descartes was a seventeenth century French Philosopher and a scientist who did not only contribute to philosophy but also mathematics and physics. He is the father of modern philosophy because of his significant contribution in the field of philosophy.

Karl Marx was a nineteenth century German philosopher and a social scientist who contributed greatly to the modern social science. Although their great works are credible, they received immense criticism during the course of history. I have seen that Rene Descartes contribution in philosophy and natural science stood the test of time; therefore, he became a hero on the other hand, Karl Marxs contribution in social science did not stand the test of time. Hence, he became an anti-hero.

Comparison

Both Rene Descartes and Karl Marx employed their philosophical knowledge in formulating their theories. They used their philosophical knowledge to solve the problems they encountered during their times. Rene Descartes in his time as a scientist, as well a philosopher, developed mathematical formulae and proved the existence of God using metaphysics approach. In his metaphysics, he provided an argument for the existence of God (Rodis-Lewis, 1999, p.102).

I have understood that anything that is doubted is real because matter and reality are inseparable; therefore, if I doubt the existence of God, then He exists. On the other hand, Karl Marx directed his philosophical knowledge in exploring politics and economics. According to Megill, fundamentally, Marx assumed that human nature involves transforming material nature (2002, p. 223). Ian perceive that he passionately believed in materialism because he formulated an economic ideology of Marxism that led to communism revolution.

Another similarity of Rene Descartes and Karl Marx is their family background. Their fathers were both lawyers, and I think they received similar upbringing that molded their lives to become great philosophers. Also in terms of religion, both were Christians, athe lthough they received criticisms that they had incorporated atheistic beliefs into their philosophical theories. I believe that these criticisms are true for Descartes entered the newly founded Jesuit College of La Fleche (Rodis-Lewis, 1999, p. 304).

He learned under Jesuits curriculum and its worth noting that Jesuits are an atheistic secret society and they must have influenced his Christian beliefs.

Blaise Pascal further accused, him by saying that, I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God, but Descartes could not avoid prodding God to set the world in motion with a snap of his lordly fingers; after that, he had no more use for God (Rodis-Lewis, 1999, p. 162). Although he was a professed Christian, his philosophical beliefs in meditation were associated with atheistic beliefs.

Likewise, Karl Marx was influenced by Hegels atheistic beliefs as they made use of Hegels dialectical method as a powerful weapon for the critique of established politics and religion (Megill, 2002, p.180). In the socialism and communism revolution, Hegelian tactics were used to mobilize workers to wage war against capitalism. I think these philosophers harbored both Christian and atheistic beliefs, for the atheists used them to propagate their ideologies in shaping society.

Contrast

I can read from their historical background that Rene Descartes and Karl Marx were not contemporary philosophers as they lived a century a part. This historical difference led them to differ in their philosophical ideologies and perception of life. Rene Descartes focused his philosophical knowledge towards physics and mathematical discoveries. Modern mathematics like calculus, analytical geometry, Cartesian coordinate system, laws of reflection and momentum originated from him.

His works still form the basis of current scientific inventions and applications. Descartes theory provided the basis for the calculus of Newton and Leibniz by applying infinitesimal calculus to the tangent line problem, thus permitting the evolution of that branch of modern mathematics (Gullberg, 1997, p. 4). Descartes left enormous scientific legacy that I still apply today and thus he passes for a philosophical hero.

Karl Marx focused his philosophical knowledge of economic and social science. Using historical experiences, he described the society history saying that, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles (Megill, 2002, p. 50).

I understand that he wanted to eliminate economic system of capitalism and replace it with communism for he argued that, capitalism like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its destruction (Baird, 2008, p. 89). With this perception on capitalism, he formulated the ideology of communism that later become Marxism.

After his death, the ideology of Marxism intensified workers movement as a way to weaken capitalism but it failed. Karl Marx passes for an anti-hero because &he did not hold to the materialistic conception of history thinking that it had adequate justification but held it because the circumstances were consistent with his deepest philosophical commitments (Megill, 2002, p. 337). His ideologies of socialism, communism, and Marxism did not stand the test of time hence making him an anti-hero.

Conclusion

I concur that Rene Descartes and Karl Marx were both great philosophers who made a great contribution to society during their time and by extension, up to this modern world. My analysis shows that their differences result from the impact of their ideologies on the current society and as to whether they did stand the test of time. What we can learn from the philosophers is that moral character determines moral decision in choosing and formulating philosophical ideologies, which will have a lasting benefit to humanity.

References

Baird, F. (2008). From Plato to Derrida: Upper Saddle River. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Gullberg, J. (1997). Mathematics from the Birth of Numbers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Megill, A. (2002). Karl Marx: The Burden of Reason. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Rodis-Lewis, G. (1999). Descartes: His Life and Thought. New York: Cornell University Press.