Category: Karl Marx

One of the most influential ideas offered by liberalists in their time is connected to money and its role in human life. The representatives of liberalism truly believe that money can make people free. Taking into account this assertion, it is possible to admit that money can also make people happier because freedom and happiness are the concepts which are usually connected to each other.

However, there are a number of philosophers and great thinkers who cannot agree to this idea and believed that money should never be regarded as a means of freedom and happiness but vice versa as a source of inequality, poverty, and disappointments.

Such brilliant modern philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx introduce captivating approaches which help to realize a true essence of money and to get a clear idea about what can make people free and happy. On the one hand, it is difficult to imagine that ideas of Rousseau and Marx may have a lot in common; however, on the other hand, their attitudes to money value deserve attention.

Marx and Rousseau were eager to improve the society they lived in and make people free; to achieve these purposes, it is necessary to prove that money does not have such power to provide all people with necessary freedom and happiness because their main purpose is to create inequality and to divide people into groups in accordance with demands and possibilities.

Almost the whole century divides such brilliant and educative philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx. However, time is not the only factor according to which these men and their ideas have to be compared.

They are the representatives of different countries, traditions, and beliefs, and still their works and ideas are characterized by a peculiar similarity that is connected to the value of money and its power over people. Rousseau and Marx defined the power of money that was inherent to any type of society; however, this identification was not the symbol of money as something emancipative.

They spoke about the power of private property and the necessity to make some changes because rights people maintained had nothing in common with equality; Rousseau underlined the idea of people freedoms but under such condition which could promote orderly society, however, he could not decrease the necessity level of rights of property. The ideas of these two philosophers demonstrate that private property made people isolated and self-interested but still dependent on each other and unequal.

Having such attitudes to money, human freedoms, and rights, Rousseau and Marx could easily create a kind of powerful opposition to the representatives of liberalism who strongly believed that money was one of the most crucial sources of human freedoms and happiness. However, the idea of relations between money and freedom has faced a number of philosophical difficulties.

Liberalists made numerous attempts to prove that freedom and money had a close connection to each other because a person without money cannot become free. According to the liberalistic point of view, freedom has to be economically defined. A person has money, and this is why he/she is able to buy freedom and to be happy.

Such weak and sometimes even humiliating ideas made the vast majority of philosopher develop their own strategies and theories in order to prove that such money dependence should influence human freedoms. Rousseau admitted that he should wished to live and dies free (Rousseau 2) and he did not underline the necessity of money for this freedom; and Marx believed that man (a worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions (Marx, Estranged Labor 74).

Can money make people free and happy? Hardly! If you have money, it is impossible to say that sometimes you may have enough money to be satisfied and enjoy this life. When a person gets an access to money, this person is enslaved by it. This is why it is possible to say that people are not free especially when they have money.

And what is more important if people are enslaved by other people, they can easily recognize this dependence and its power. And when people are enslaved by money, they are not able to define this dependence and continue living under this invisible but still crucial dependence.

The desire to get more money leads to inequality between people. And if so many people are eager to destroy all features of inequality, why do they continue supporting the idea of having money and making money powerful? In other words, it is possible to say that money can make people happier for a while but never free; and when the moment of happiness passes, the long-lasting period begins that makes people work for money, think about money, and live for money.

Karl Marx said that free development of each is the condition for the free development of all (Marx, The Communist Manifesto 12). This person truly believed that it is possible to achieve freedom and happiness only by means of properly arranged order. According to him, money is condition for development but still not its result. If a person has money, he is eager to be identified among the rest. If this identification takes place, the process of inequality begins.

And if inequality continues its development, there is no chance for people to have freedom. Almost the same attitude to freedom and money was represented by Rousseau. He underlines a chance of any person to be born free. Of course, much should depend on the conditions under which people live; however, they should not forget their true human nature that explains the only free men may be involved in search of the truth (Rousseau 15).

In comparison to Marx, Rousseau seems to be more pessimistic to the idea of money. If Marx believed that the value of money was crucial for inequality that develops within a society under specific conditions, then Rousseau identified money as the reason to start fights, develop discontents, and increase the desire to have more and break the already established norms.

Though money plays such a significant role in this life, it cannot make people free from all things and conditions inherent to this world. People are not as strong as it may seem because they may become blind in respect to the requirements and peculiarities of their life. Money may promote survival, prosperity, and success but such concepts as freedom or happiness should have nothing in common with money.

So, if the answer to the question whether money makes people free and happy is a certain NO, another question should appear. What can make people free and happy if money cannot? In fact, it is very difficult to give one clear answer to such philosophical question. Rousseau as one of the most sophisticated and polite philosopher suggests paying more attention to human lives and the ways people prefer to choose.

For example, he underlined either desire or an opportunity of emerging from it (Rousseau 31) as the most powerful components of human happiness. If a person believes that his /her desires as well as his/her faculties are equal, he/she may become happy.

As for freedom, Rousseau believed that there were different types of freedom that could be achieved by means of human participation in processes required from community. And Marx in his turn evaluated freedom as freedom from interference in peoples education, communication, evaluation, and realization (Marx, The Communist Manifesto 40). And human happiness is closely connected to human needs, labor, and ownership.

In general, the idea of human happiness and freedom may be regarded from many different sides. First, each person has his/her own demands, needs, and interests. Of course, much depends on the community a person lives in.

This is why it is possible to believe that human freedoms come from human faith and desire: if you want to become free, you are welcome to use your skills, knowledge, and faculties to achieve the desirable aim. As for human happiness, it is more personal issue: friends, food, health, knowledge, etc. When a person knows what makes him/her happy, achieves purposes, and enjoy the feeling of satisfaction, this person may be called happy.

The works by Rousseau and Marx help to define that much about happiness and freedom depends on human surroundings. It is useless to represent some definite claims and prove their correctness. Constant development of this society requires considerable changes and new requirements for freedom and happiness. It is difficult for one person to define what makes other people happy, and this is why it is better to be responsible and confident in personal happiness and personal freedoms.

Works Cited

Marx, Karl. Estranged Labor. In Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels The Marx-Engels Reader. 2 ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1978.

Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Penguin Classics, 2002.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on Inequality. Kessinger Publishing, 2004.

The global economic downturn stimulates a resurgence of enthusiasm for the philosophical works of Karl Marx, particularly Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto.

Marx remains one of the worlds few modern philosophers able to integrate weighty theoretical concepts into a practical form applicable to both intellectual and non-intellectual society. What, precisely, do we still need to learn from Marx? In a word: revolution. Said revolution will be quite quiet, and distinctly personal, and so will occur mainly within the confines of individual skulls.

This revolution requires no weapons; no bloodshed or violence ensues. The only death, per se, will be the death of delusion. We need to adopt a revolutionary mindset in order to grasp the one salient truth that may prove to be the emancipation of all humans, not simply one select class. The Truth Revolution involves the comprehension that ownership itself is a myth, a myth which in turn shapes a dangerous and destructive delusion that forms the beating heart of capitalism: the illusion of control.

Critical speculation abounds as to how Marx would characterize the current financial crisis, characterized by frantic efforts by merchants to unload onto the consumer, at almost any price, the vast surplus of unsold commodities that have accumulated since the credit crisis began to take hold (Hitchens 2009, 89).

Certainly, several of Marxs key theories, namely the bitter struggle between finance capital and industrial capital, prophesized the global economic meltdown, as Hitchens reflects, in a manner that borders on downright eerie (Hitchens 2009, 89): [T]he pride of American capitalism has seized up and begun to rust, and&automobiles may cease even to be made in Detroit as a consequence of insane speculation in worthless paper derivatives.

The lines of jobless and hungry begin to lengthen, and what more potent image of those lines do we possess than that of the reserve army of the unemployed  capitals finest weapon in beating down the minimum wage and increasing the hours of the working week? (Hitchens 2009, 89).

Marx did not grasp the whole picture, however, as Hitchens carefully notes. Perhaps the philosophers own pride or arrogance swayed him to underestimate the tenacity and creativity of capitalist imagination, particularly in regards to the former stalwarts of communism, Russia and China.

Who was predicting even 30 years ago that Russia and China would today be turbocharged capitalist systems, however discrepant in type? (Hitchens 2009, 89). While Marx may have felt in his time that he was sounding the death knell of capitalism, Hitchens highlights the philosophers failure, in Das Kapital, to grasp quite how revolutionary capitalist innovation really was.

The chapter on new industrial machinery opens with a snobbish quotation from John Stuart Mills Principles of Political Economy: It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the days toil of any human being. This must have seemed absurd even at the time, and it appears preposterous after the third wave of technological revolution and rationalization that modern capitalism has brought in its train (Hitchens 2009, 95).

However, what Hitchens misses from Das Kapital is Marxs vital clarification of the social role of money and capital. The value of commodities more and more expands into an embodiment of human labour in the abstract&one function of money, namely, [is] to serve as the form of manifestation of the value of commodities, or as the material in which the magnitudes of their values are socially expressed (Marx 1996, 69).

The Truth Revolution stems from this concept  the idea that both money and value are social agreements. Marx understood that man is not an abstract being, squatting outside the world. Man is the human world, the state, society (Marx 1990, 79). Just as man makes religion; religion does not make man, humans created money, the idea of value, the economy, capitalism, the markets, and, most definitely, the crash itself (Marx 1990, 79).

This may seem obvious and simplistic, but upon reflection, we can see tremendous power in the simple but profound understanding that what is, has been made, and can just as easily be unmade. This understanding is the root of revolution: the only absolute in life is death.

Leo Panitch expounds on this speculation of Marxs reaction, were he alive today, to the crash. Marx would certainly relish pointing out how flaws inherent in capitalism led to the current crisis. He would see how modern developments in finance, such as securitization and derivatives, have allowed markets to spread the risks of global economic integration (Panitch 2009, 142).

The deep penetration of finance into all strata of society, according to Panitch, means that consumer demand (and hence, prosperity) in recent years has depended more and more on credit cards and mortgage debt at the same time that the weakened power of trade unions and cutbacks in social welfare have made people more vulnerable to market shocks (Panitch 2009, 142). This increasingly unstable and volatile global system of finance has contributed to overall economic growth in recent decades.

But it also produced a series of inevitable financial bubbles, the most dangerous of which emerged in the U.S. housing sector. That bubbles subsequent bursting had&profound impact around the globe precisely because of its centrality to sustaining both U.S. consumer demand and international financial markets (Panitch 2009, 142). In global capitalism, in other words, the snake eats its own tail.

Panitch loses the thread, however, when he asserts that capitalism, by its nature, breeds and fosters social isolation (Panitch 2009, 142). It is not capitalism that creates social isolation. Instead, the myth of ownership and the delusion of control manufacture a false world wherein those with material possessions believe that through said ownership, they are somehow better off  more in control of their lives  than those who lack material possessions.

Nicholas Capaldi, in his religiously themed polemic Spiritual Capitalism: Envy and Social Engineering, Not the Market, are to Blame for our Malaise, attacks Marxs philosophy on the grounds that the use of social science to explain human relations has blinded scholars to the true sources of this philosophy. Having abandoned Weber for Marx, Durkheim, Freud, and deconstruction, social scientists totally miss the spiritual roots of the liberal order.

They presume a secular outlook in which religious belief is just another misguided epiphenomenon (Capaldi 2010, 13). Conversely, Capaldi argues, political individualism and free markets relate to social cohesion (Capaldi 2010, 13). Amazingly, Capaldi lays blame for the current global economic crisis on the shoulders of insecure members of the society, specifically, envious Americans:

[T]he most serious problem within modern liberal societies is the presence of failed or incomplete individuals. Either unaware of or lacking faith in their ability to exercise self-discipline, incomplete individuals seek escape into the collective identity of communities insulated from the challenge of opportunity.

These are people focused on avoiding failure rather than on achieving success. Incomplete individuals identify themselves by feelings of envy, resentment, self-distrust, victimization, and self-pity  in short, an inferiority complex. Anti-Americanism abroad and lack of faith in American Exceptionalism at home are the clearest manifestations (Capaldi 2010, 14).

Self-discipline and faithlessness aside, the Truth Revolution transcends envy. Envy, in itself, is a product of the collective delusion maintained by capitalism, that ownership equates to control.

Kornai lauds Marxs scholarship and lucidity of thought, and credits this with the continued vitality of his philosophy. Similarly, Kornai points to a sense of security that Marxs teachings instill in his followers: [Marxists] possess&an analytical apparatus and a conceptual framework with a universal explanatory force. Whatever the historical event, the economic problem, or the stage performance to be considered, there&[is] an instrument in a Marxists hands that perform[s]&the task of analysis.

This&[gives] the Marxist a sense of superiority (Kornai 2009, 969). Certainly, Marxs arrogance led him, and perhaps his followers also, to assume that capitalism would simply die out. Capitalism, however, remains tenacious due to the attraction of the illusion it represents. Theory is only realized in a people so far as it fulfills the needs of the people, and the theory of capitalism fulfills the needs of consumer society to feel in charge and in control (Marx 1990, 87).

The terms equality and inequality often appear in a Marxist context. Capaldi hypothesizes that Marx&stresses equality and&posits that far from satisfying genuine human needs, the arts and sciences are expressions of pride&and have led to consumerism and the loss of community. The&social contract is characterized as one in which the rich and powerful coerce the less fortunate into institutionalizing inequality (Capaldi 2010, 14).

Journalist Nicholas Kristof delineates figures that underscore the wide gap between the haves and have nots in the U.S. as of 2010: the top 1 percent of Americans owns 34 percent of Americas private net worth, according to figures compiled by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. The bottom 90 percent owns just 29 percent. That also means that the top 10 percent controls more than 70 percent of Americans total net worth (Kristof 2010, A37).

This unequal distribution of ownership, according to Kristof, leads to the disbanding of society as a whole. [W]hat happens in dysfunctional countries where the rich just dont care about those below the decks&[is] nations without a social fabric or sense of national unity. Huge concentrations of wealth corrode the soul of any nation (Kristof 2010, A37). The Truth Revolution transcends the state of Equality and Inequality described herein. In the Truth Revolution, all are equal.

What, precisely, do we still need to learn from Marx? And what, precisely, is the Truth Revolution?

The global economic crisis, according to Hitchens, was actually triggered by a subprime attempt to transform low-income people into property owners, albeit indebted ones (Hitchens 2009, 89). The question to ask then, remains, why was the desire to own so strong in individuals who held no real means of traditional ownership? Why were low income people so driven to acquire private property, when they knew they could not sustain it?

Marx called for the dissolution of society, embodied and spearheaded by a particular class&the proletariat (Marx 1990, 90). The proletariat form[s] a sphere of society which claims no traditional status but only a human status (Marx 1990, 90).

However, we do not need to learn to somehow physically divest ourselves of private property. We do need dissolution of private property, but only in the figurative sense. What we really need to divest ourselves of is the illusion of ownership itself. Ownership does not equate to control; control cannot be had.

The Truth Revolution demands a hard look at the reality of life as a human.

Ownership as a means to control remains the single most debilitating delusion pervasive to humanity. Why? Truth be told, we as human beings own nothing, not even our own bodies. We do not control our inner workings. We can neither stop ourselves from aging nor dying.

Our cells multiply and attack each other without our knowledge or consent. As far as material ownership goes, our stocks liquefy in our hands, our lands get wiped out by tsunamis and hurricanes, our children die or disown us, and our minds succumb to Alzheimers, wherein we forget that we ever owned anything in the first place, and our material possessions pass along into other hands.

No amount of money guarantees control. No human made instrument prevents catastrophic loss. To be human is by definition to be a custodian. Therefore, we control nothing.

Marxs philosophy teaches that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of arms. Material force can only be overthrown by material force; but theory itself becomes a material force when it has seized the masses (Marx 1990, 86). While the Truth Revolution surpasses theory, as it must, being truth, Marx correctly identifies the galvanizing social effect that a sound theory creates in a populace.

If we choose to learn from Marx, we learn that if in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose it political character.

Political power&is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled&by means of a revolution&to make itself the ruling class&it will&have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally (Marx 2003,15).

This state, this dissolution of class is the natural state, and has always existed. The illusion of ownership as a means to control, maintained through the guiding ethos of capitalist society, falsifies the true nature of life  unstable, dynamic, and entirely outside the purview of human control.

In the same way that the proletariat revolution imagined and engineered by Marx does, the Truth Revolution sweeps away all delusion, and creates the dual experience of waking the human race up while simultaneously forcing the human race to grow up.

Once we accept that its all made up, and that no human made financial product insulates us from the random, unpredictable, uncontrollable nature of life that we are all subject to, being of life and not outside of it, the Truth Revolution creates a human race capable of feeling secure in its own insecurity.

Reference List

Capaldi, Nicholas. 2010. Spiritual Capitalism: Envy and Social Engineering, Not the Market, are to Blame for our Malaise. The American Conservative 9.6: 13-14.

Hitchens, Christopher. 2009. Hes Back: The Current Financial Crisis and the Enduring Relevance of Marx. The Atlantic (April): 88-93.

Kornai, Janos. 2009. Marx Through the Eyes of an East European Intellectual. Social Research 76.3: 965-987.

Kristof, Nicholas D. 2010. A Hedge Fund Republic? New York Times. Web.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Serge L. Levitsky. 1996. Das Kapital: A Critique of Political Economy. Friedrich Engels, ed. Washington: Regnery Gateway.

Marx, Karl. 1990. Religion, the Opiate of the People. The World Treasury of Modern Religious Thought. Jaroslav Pelikan, ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Marx, Karl. 2003. The Communist Manifesto. BompaCrazy.com. Web.

Panitch, Leo. 2009. Thoroughly Modern Marx: Lights. Camera. Action. Das Kapital. Now. Foreign Policy 172: 140-143.

Karl Marx was born in the town of Trier, Germany in the year 1818. Initially he joined the University of Bonn as a law student. Later he joined the University of Berlin. He is considered to be amongst the individual who had great influence on social thinking during the 19^th century. He was considered to play diverse role by contributing to various aspects. This is due to that apart from being a philosopher; he was also characterized by being a historian and a social scientist. His works resulted in a great revolution within the society. Despite all his efforts, his contributions had been ignored during his lifetime by most the scholars. Only in the recent past did his ideas regarding social and political aspects considered important (The History Guide).

One of his contributions with regard to issues in the society was with regard to the theory of alienation. For a long time, there has been a perception that human life is being affected by forces that are impersonal in nature. This made most the people have a perception that the occurrence of these forces is natural in nature and human beings are independent of their occurrence.

In the modern world there are numerous changes that have occurred which are affecting human life. These changes are putting human existence under a pressure making him be helpless despite them being a created by the human being. This means that the effort of man in terms of labor has turned to be a threat. The world today is characterized by increased rate of global warming, insecurity and food shortage despite the fact that man has the power to control the world (Cox para.1).

Through his theory of alienation, Karl Marx sought to illustrate that all the external forces that are experienced within the society are a result of past human activities. Through his alienation theory, Karl Marx was able to illustrate that there is a strong relationship between the past and the modern in that history determines the future (The History Guide).

Karl Marxs understanding of alienation was multidimensional. This is due to the fact that despite society having an effect on human life, human beings too have the capacity to change the society in which they live consciously. Despite this ability, the capitalistic nature of the society limits this capacity. For instance the type of labor that exists in the society is forced or rather coerced.

He also understood that alienation is deeply related to the material world. To him alienation meant that human beings had lost control precisely with regard to labor. For instance; Marx illustrates how an individual is alienated from the work of his own labor particularly in a capitalist society. This is due to the fact that the creative work of an individual is enjoyed by another. For instance in the case of the farmers, their produce is consumed by other individuals while they are left to be malnourished. According to Karl Marx, alienation with regard to the product of labor is evident from the fact that the workers are separated from the products of their own labor. On the other hand, alienation is evident in that the worker is paid peanuts for the high value that he or she creates. Karl Marks explains that the workers labor becomes an alien to his own existence and hence has the capacity to torment his life. This is mainly so in a capitalistic society where those who put the largest effect live in deplorable conditions.

According to Marx, alienation is also evident with regard to the production process. This is due to the fact that individuals have got no power determine what is to be produced or even with regard to the conditions in the working environment. This means that the job environment will have an effect on the workers both mentally and also physically. The ultimate result is that the individuals level of creativity is greatly reduced since he or she does not have any control (Cox para.7).

This has an effect on human life since individuals develop a perception that life is an activity that is being imposed on him or them. This is due to the fact that since the society is capitalist in nature, the employees are pressurized to have higher results by working for long hours and at a higher rate. This shows that the working process is not under the control of the workers.

According to Marx, alienation is also evident in that the entire production process is conducted by use of modern technology. This means that the workers skills are killed since work is divided into small parts along an assembly line. The result is that technology threatens the unity that existed in the execution of tasks through teamwork. the work process is also controlled by just a few individuals at the management level yet it affects all the other workers (Cox para.8).

Marx understood human beings as social beings (Cox Para. 5). This means that collectively individuals can enhance the level of their outcome with regard to a particular activity. This is due to the fact that individuals can effectively plan what is of necessity to them and the society in general. This is however limited by the capitalistic nature of the society which is mostly motivated by the need for higher profits. For instance, technological advancement has resulted in increase in the level of profits but on the other hand environmental pollution has greatly increased. This has resulted in the current climatic change. This clearly illustrates how the society the future depends on the human actions.

One of the greatest criticisms of capitalism by Karl Marx was with regard to it being irrational. According to Karl Marx, the irrationality of the capitalists arises from the fact that they had a perception that in order for there to be an increase in the level of profits from their firms, they had to heavily invest in capital.

According to them the definition of capital included the machinery. The uncontrollable desire for high profits made these firm owners heavily invest in machinery (Udayan p. 16). However the result was high level of losses in the process of the firm operation. This is due to the fact that machines do not directly relate to the level of profits but rather is the quality of labor.

Karl Marx illustrated the criticism for irrationality of capitalism in various ways. A capitalistic economy is characterized by intense competition amongst the producing firms. The competition in the production process is instigated by the need to satisfy the market demand. The end result is that competing firms end up producing and supplying more than the market demand can accommodate. In most cases the goods that these firms produce are not what the customers need (Marxs Criticism of capitalism p.1).

Consequently the overproduction of these firms results in workers being laid off which increases the rate of unemployment. The unemployment affects different sectors of the economy resulting in economic depression. If this cycle continues, it culminates into economic recession.

According to the article Marx criticism for capitalism capitalists are aimed at increasing the level of their firms profit. In order for this to happen, the strategy that most of the firms apply is ensuring that the wages of their employees are very low. This has a negative impact on these employees in that they will not have the financial capacity to buy the goods that the capitalistic firms that they work in. This illustrates a high degree of exploitation that is done to the workers by their employees (p.2).

On the other hand, capitalism has not had a negative effect on the distribution chain of the goods that are produced. In a capitalist economy, most of the firms are owned and entirely controlled by individuals. This means that these individuals do not allow the market forces to operate efficiently. The owners of these firms are the ones who determine what is to be produced and supplied into the market. Due to the powers of the capitalists, they have an influence on the governments effort to control the market. This makes the government have minimum say with regard to their production and supply decisions. The end result is that the distribution of goods and services becomes very inefficient.

Karl Marx believed that is only a revolution that would contribute to ending the negative impacts of capitalism. This is due to the fact that a revolution would result in a change. Since capitalism results in social inequality, the only option was to replace the inequality created by another inequality. Through this process it would be possible for the process of revolution to be instigated (Udayan p.10).

In order for the workers to change their situation, they had to engage themselves in a revolution directed towards the capitalists due to their exploitative nature. Karl Marx believed that through, this it would be possible for the employees to achieve numerous repercussions that are beneficial to them. For instance the capitalist nature of the economy allows private ownership and control of property. The revolution would result in joint ownership of the key resources. The implication is that the raw materials and other factors of production such as land would be jointly controlled (Marx criticism for capitalism p.2).

The revolution would also have an impact on the production process by firms with regard to what is to be produced. This would ensure that what is produced is of necessity to the entire society and not derived from the profit motive of the firm owners. This would have a positive effect on the society in general since it would reduce the negative effects of competitive products on the economy.

Karl Marx also perceived that revolution would result in a more effective distribution of the products and services produced in the economy. This means that the economy would be changed from a capitalistic nature to a communist. This would give the government command the control of production and supply of the goods and services. One of the areas where this revolution would help according to Karl Marx is with regard to pricing of the commodities.

In conclusion Karl Marks had great contribution to the society especially with social, political and economic issues. One of his contributions is with regard to alienation theory. He explains how the future is determined by the past human actions. The multidimensional perspective alienation theory helps to illustrate the society has an impact on human life and how the human beings can change the society.

His understanding of alienation is that human beings lack control of most of the things that happen in their life. This is mainly due to the capitalistic nature of the society. He precisely illustrates the lack of control particularly with respect to labor. What the workers produce is not consumed by them but is rather enjoyed by others. The production process also alienates the workers in that they are made to work in a harsh environment. Coercion also characterizes the work environment. This reduces the creativity of the employees.

Alienation is also evident in that the characteristic of human beings as social beings is affected. This intensifies competition resulting in production of goods and services that are not of necessity to the society.

This made Karl Marx greatly criticize capitalism as being irrational. This is due to its negative effects on the society. It made the distribution process to be inefficient since it was controlled by individuals whereas the government had minimal influence. The increase in competition could result in economic recession. Capitalism also results in poor living standards of the workers since they are lowly paid as the firms seek higher profits. It also results in alienation of labor.

It is only through a revolution that the workers could be able to bring change. The revolution would result in effective distribution while the products to be produced are those that are of necessity.

Works cited

Cox, Judy. An introduction to Karl Marx theory of alienation Britain: International Socialist, 1998. Web.

Kreis, Steven. The history guide: lectures on modern European intellectual history, Karl Marx (1818-1883), 2008.

Marxs criticism of capitalism. Roy, Udayan. Karl Marx, 2007.

Introduction

Karl Marx was a great German philosopher who lived between 1818 and 1883. Philosophical ideas of Karl Marx revolve around economics, political, and social perspectives of the society. This analytical treatise attempts to explicitly review the philosophical ideas of Karl Marx.

Karl Marxs biography

Karl Marx was born in 1818 in the town of Prussian Rhineland. During his college education, Marx became an ardent follower of the thought of Young Hegelians which influenced most his works. His philosophy revolved around human society in the elements of class struggle and socialism.

As a journalist, he worked for renowned papers such as the Cologne and the New York Tribune, where his columns attracted both criticism and praise in equal measure. Marx died in 1881.

Philosophical ideas of Karl Mark

Karl Marx expressed his sentiments on alienation and pain in the lower class workers imprisonment by the private individuals who have the resources to manipulate and twist social, development, and welfare aspects of the masses in the society.

Specifically, the views of Karl Marx on the nature of class struggle, causes and responses to these struggles by the masses were drawn from France during the period of 1848 and 1850. In fact, Marx argued that these private individuals are drawn from the bourgeoisies and the ruling elites in the society. The bourgeoisies are thriving in discrimination and exploitation of labor supply to satisfy their selfishness.

Since the bourgeoisies are the masters of labor production tools such as wages, this group, comprising of just a small percent of the society, comfortably sits at the apex of Maslows hierarchy of needs pyramid and cannot share the huge profits with the actual laborers who are subjected to harsh working conditions to create a surplus for their exploitative bosses (Shimp 17).

As observed by Marx, the powerful private individuals influence labor laws processes in any country to suit their private needs which he termed as selfish.

Marx described these laws as only good when the same meet their opinionated threshold characterized by mere confirmation of their will; which may not necessarily be in line with the will of the underage employees subjected to inhuman work condition with very little and unreasonable pay.

Karl Marx further pointed out that the agents of these masses such as labor unions are sometimes compromised to support the selfish course at the expense of the ordinary employees. Marx noted that the exploiters have formalized their definition partial policies in employee welfare and social interaction.

The passionate appeals by the exploited proletariats who give free labor are ignored by the bias labor policies and internalized corruption among the agents who should regulate these private individuals (Marx 21).

Marxs labor theory of value adopts a very simple approach to describe the type and source of profits in a production activity. Marx suggested that market equilibrium will be reached when market prices and production prices are equal as market competition will conspire to redistribute the excess value.

This interaction will ensure that profit would be equalized by the competition. Marx acknowledged the dynamics of the labor market.

In the ideal, the segmentation degree is controlled by union and government regulations that are designed to encourage rigidities and drive the costs of labor above the market clearing level. Therefore, the informal sector remains non proportional to reflect on the magnitude of the reforms required.

When there is an assigned probability of selection within a specific period of time, then the probability of an ingression into formal employment should be a rising experience function in the labor ratios (Marx 11).

Marx was of the opinion that market equilibrium will be reached when market prices and production prices are equal as market competition will conspire to redistribute the excess value. Thus, increasing the function of production would eventually stabilize the profit rates in any long run production function.

Though the approach adopted by Marx was very abstract, he succeeded in extrapolating the factors of product to different labor determinant ratios such as socially standard compulsory labor and the abstract labor to a homogeneous labor called the multiple of unskilled labor (Shimp 22).

Karl Mark had bitter sentiments of alienation and pain in lower class imprisonment by the ruling class who have the resources to manipulate and twist social, religious, development, and political aspects of the society. Marx (1859) reflected in the actions of the political class in relation to the ordinary citizens.

Marx identified selfishness, definition partial policies, and class systems as propagated by the political classes in capitalist societies (Marx 19). Marx concluded that political revolution is possible if the masses change their perception on labor provision and the laws that imprison them.

As a result, he proposed a socialist approach through passionate appeal to the proletariats to rise above the normal way of life and start to question these bias policies and governance of labor which they provide for peanuts (Shimp 18). In a perfectly skewed labor market, Mark argued that wages are supposed to be determined by the cost of production and total output.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. The masses are merely spectators of exploitation as though our hands and minds are imprisoned in the dungeon of social classes.

Noting that these bourgeoisies cannot operate and meet their selfish goals minus the labor from the masses, Mark proposed that these ordinary workers could unite and move from mere spectators into agents of quantifiable and desirable change they long to witness (Shimp 19).

Conclusion

Marx noted that the class struggles were influenced by the economic, social and political disparities between the bourgeoisies and the proletariats in the society. Marx concludes that the only solution to the class struggle is revolution to restore the socialism in the society.

This is achievable when the ordinary workers unite and move from mere spectators into agents of quantifiable and desirable change they long to witness. Marxs theoretical review of historical materialism is applicable in the modern society. The philosopher relates the political, social and religious systems of the past as a result of capitalism.

The Marx notes that the building blocks of these systems are inequality, selfishness and vested interest. Apparently, these disparities have continued to promote class struggle in the modern society.

The above views are applicable in the modern society because of the fact that development and perception of an individual are greatly influenced by events in his or her external environment such as the type of education received, religious doctrines, and the social media of interaction (Shimp 17). At present, these are skewed towards fulfilling selfish ambitions of the minority who are the ruling class in any society.

Works Cited

Marx, Karl 1850, The class struggles in France, 1848-1850. PDF file. Web.

Marx, Karl 1859, A contribution to the critique of political economy. PDF file. Web.

Shimp, Kaleb 2009, The validity of Karl Marxs theory of historical materialism. Web.

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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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.

Held, David., 2006. Models of Democracy, 2nd edition. Oxford: Polity Press.

Maguire, John., 1978. Marxs Theory of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marx, Karl., 1996. Later Political Writings, ed. T. Carver. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McLellan, David., 1971. The Thought of Karl Marx, an Introduction. New York: Harper & Row.

Wolff, Jonathan., 2003. Why Read Marx Today? New York: Oxford University Press, USA.

After the development of individuation during the period of the Renaissance, the majority of political thinkers developed their theories based on the individuals relationship with economic factors. Among the most prominent of those thinkers were Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Mill, and Kant. In the following paper, the way these outstanding political philosophers addressed economical factors in their theories will be discussed.

The development of the concept of individuation became an important point in the evolution of political thought after the Renaissance. Individuation is a complex notion that has its implementation in a variety of sciences including political science, biology, medicine, psychology, and many more. In politics, individuation is characterized by having a row of important elements including:

1. continual development of a studied unit,
2. gradual transformation development of a studied unit,
3. prematurely interrupted the development of a studied unit,
4. forward-looking development of a studied unit,
5. scholasticism.

Among them, the most important elements are gradual transformation and the continual process of development as they consider different phenomena subjected to individuation from the most varied angles.

After the development of the concept of individuation in politics, numerous specialists incorporated different factors, shedding light on the progress of social and political relations. Below, the way incorporating economic factors contributed to the advancement of political theories will be discussed on the examples of such great thinkers as Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Mill, and Kant. Rousseau used economic factors in his social contract theory to explain how the mechanism of political authority was exercised by the state over an individual. In his theory, Rousseau identified that economic factors become the key factors that cause the emersion of the dependence between the state and its citizens (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 220).

Hegel utilized economic factors in his theory of historicism when he explained the nature of the phenomenon of social contrast. He explained that social contrast occurs when as a result of the development of society, individuals accumulate enough capital to acquire more weight among their fellow compatriots. Besides, in Elements of the Philosophy of Right, Hegel spoke about his ideas on the distribution of proper balance between political and social institutions by means of regulatory economic factors and expressed his position regarding the matter by stating that economic factors were the most important for organizing people into social groups.

Marx was among the political thinkers, who addressed the impact of economic factors in his theories more actively than the other philosophers. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx explored the problem of primitive accumulation as the main concern regarding the origin of capital. According to him, primitive accumulation of economic riches affected the differences between wealthy ones and non-possessors and resulted in the organization of classes (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 294; 296). Marx made these conclusions examining such significant events from the history of humanity as the discovery of gold and silver in America, the conquest and plunder in India, and the conversion of the population of Africa into potential slaves for a western capitalistic society. He explained these events as primary moments of primitive accumulation (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 302).

In his Utilitarianism, Mill addressed economic factors to explain the origin of capital, social relations among people, and the distribution of authority in states (Ebenstein and Ebenstein 283). Speaking about the economic effectiveness of different social formations such as socialism, capitalism, and communism, Mill defined wealth as all the useful and worthy things, which implicate exchangeable value, and affect the status of an individual in society, proved that equal distribution of wealth would destroy the progress-motivating force of competition, and explained that this economic factor was the crucial element of socialist and communist society that would bring them to a disaster.

Kant applied economic factors to his theory of the development of economic classes. He explained that economical classes develop as a result of accumulating material possessions that are controlled and distributed by guardians, who emerge from the most active leaders in the process of material wealth collecting. This implied that a guardian had to allow the masses to think and act in such a way that would permit gathering the most significant amount of material possessions. According to Kant, throughout history, there have been guardians who have contributed to the enlightenment of the masses, through nurture, motivation, and teaching of new ways of collecting material wealth. Among such outstanding guardians, leading the masses to economical enlightenment were Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar.

In conclusion, it should be stated that after the development of individuation, many political thinkers incorporated its ideas into their theories. Among them were Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Mill, and Kant, who explained different aspects of the progress of human society from the angle of economic factors. Although all of those thinkers had rather diverse thoughts concerning the effect of economic factors on human society, all of them agree that these factors have been crucial for the transformation of unorganized human communities into unified formations such as cities, states, and coalitions of states.

References

Ebenstein, William, and Alan Ebenstein. Introduction to Political Thinkers, Second Edition, The United States: Wadsworth Publishing, 2001. Print.

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 19^th century. The 19^th 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 Marxs concerns on the impacts of social class on human nature. He expounds on how social class could contribute immensely to depriving an individuals 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 Marxs 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 Marxs 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.

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 peoples 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 Gods assistance. In comparison to Marxs comprehension of philosophy, Hegels 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 Hegels 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 Hegels 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 peoples 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 Marxs 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 peoples 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 peoples 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 persons liberty.

This perspective had a defining impact on Mills 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 ones own needs and desires and other peoples 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. Mills 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 Mills 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.

Marxs 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 peoples 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. Mills 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.

Introduction

Karl Marx talks of the social stratification in a capitalist society based on production and argues that this leads to the two major classes: those who own the means of production (the Bourgeoisie) and those who dont (the proletariat) and must now sell their labor to survive (Kessel, 2009).

Marx justified his stand on exploitation based on social stratification by illustrating its applicability on the various aspects of society, including religion and his arguments are supposed to be viewed as an extension of his general take on society (Swatos, 2008). The focus of this paper is to look into Marxs illustration of this relationship in religion.

Analysis

To Karl, the key element of religion is that it is a human product. it is man who makes religion, not religion that makes man (Marx); that it is a product of those in power, controlling production (Carmody, 2009). He says that religion is not true (is false) consciousness and as such, it diverts the attention of its followers from the reality of their miseries, the very consequences of their exploitation (Carmody, 2009). This is in relation to the religious stand that ones life is destined to proceed as defined by God and as such, ones misery is to be blamed on God (Carmody, 2009).

This is the reasoning behind Karls reasoning when he observes that it is a reflection of the nature of a capitalist society to presuppose coercion, making it hard for the people to realize their needs (Cline, 2006). This is not to say that people dont know their needs, but that they have been socialized into believing that they know the truth, which is but a set of beliefs contrary to their true interest but in favor of the interests of the bourgeoisie. This is helped by religious teachings of obedience to the present authority as a path to achieving happiness in the future life through salvation (Townsley, 2004).

Karl observes that while the prevailing economic factors shield the people from finding true happiness, religion tells them not to worry as that happiness awaits them in the next life (Townsley, 2004). Indeed, history affirms that religion, in spite of changes in the systems of production has always provided the perfect atmosphere where the so-called legitimacy of exploiter versus exploited has thrived. Religion has also helped the status quo through alienation; a process of constraining human consciousness, and maiming the development as well as the ultimate potential of human consciousness (Cox, 1988).

Marx talks of alienation quite extensively, beyond the scope of this paper, but generally Marx touches on product alienation and self alienation; the latter is what results to religion which Marx argues is the path of least resistance fight against forces that be (Cox, 1988). Religion, he says acts in two ways: as an illusory protest (giving false hope and forgetfulness against exploitation) and also as ideology (distorting and masking the truth, the socio-economic reality of the world) (Cline, 2006).

Conclusion

While Marxs stand on religion may have been influenced by his witnessing of the social and occupational immobility forced on his lawyer father by his Jewish religion, and while some of his thoughts may have been too radical or extreme, his arguments are well reflected in the arena of religion today from Sharia-justified aristocracy in Muslim nations to extortion in churches in the name of God. It is important to note that Marx does not imply that religion is the creation of the bourgeoisie, but illustrates that it is the fruit of the historical exploitation system.

References

Carmody, M. (2009). A Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right. Web.

Cox, J. (1988). An Introduction to Marxs Theory of Alienation. International Socialism Journal, 79: 1988-1992. Web.

Cline, A. (2006). Karl Marx and Religion. Web.

Kessel, D. (2009). Marx, Religion, and Sociology of Religion. Web.

Swatos, W. (2008). Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Web.

Townsley, J. (2004). Marx, Weber and Durkheim on Religion. Web.