Marx and Locke

Miriam D. Knox Dr. Soupios semipolitical Science 304 April 6, 2010 Karl Marxs and derriere Lockes Ideologies The communistic Manifesto, scripted by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels and The Second Treatise of Government written by John Locke ar two distinct written pieces that describes their ideas and their philosophical beliefs regarding how parliamentary procedure would function at its best. Moreover, both writers offer a detailed explanation about the domainy struggles that man has encountered regarding his existence in the world.In addition, they suggested political concepts whereby they felt it would help man to bring about socialization that would altogether(a)ow man to full of life a fair and qualitative life. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx uses a large portion of the entertain to give a historical perspective of magnitudeliness. He emphasizes from the very beginning that nearly of mans history has been found on economic pursuits and economic gains. As a result, he says that each(prenominal) hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles (50).Throughout history, social motley occurred when the productive forces in society clashed with the conditions of production, resulting in broad social upheaval. This was always to the benefit of one social class at the expense of another. Modern society was the result of a long series of revolutions in the modes of production, of which the bourgeois class was the main beneficiary. Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two vast serverile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other middle class and proletariat (51 ).The bourgeoisie, or capitalistic class, consists of the relatively small number of deal who avered or controlled the means of creating wealth including orbit and raw materials mines, factories, and offices machinery and technology and who could employ wage geters to work for them. Proletarians perform most of the work in capitalist economies, but they had little or no control over their work-lives or over the wealth that they produced.The human relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is an exploitative one because the latter is paid less than the value that its labor creates, with the surplus of economic profits macrocosm kept by the bourgeoisie. While wages may progression if workers are well organized and during periods of economic growth, competition between capitalists compels employers to reduce labor costs as much as possible, particularly during recurring periods of capitalist economic crisis. Historically, the bourgeoisie had played a kind of revolutionary role.Whenever it has gained business leader, it has put to an end all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. (53). It has eliminated the relationships that bound multitude to their superiors, and now all stay relations between men were characterized by self-interest alone (53). In addition, religious fervor, chivalry and sentimentalism had all been sacrificed. Personal worth is now measured by exchange value, and the only freedom is that of Free Trade. Thus, using that used to be veiled by religious and political illusions is now direct, brutal and blatant (53).The bourgeoisie has changed all occupations into wage-laboring professions, even those that were previously honored, such as that of the doctor. Similarly, family relations do lost their veil of muddiness and have been reduced to pure bills relations (53). Marx continues to describe that the bourgeoisie had only one thing in mind, and that was how to increase their economic status. Subsequently concerns and issues regarding mans overall well being was ignored and had no entailment within society. The bourgeoisie made it clear that they were only concerned with increasing their political causality.Furthermore, human conditions or any means of making humanity better was never considered nor important. In fact, Marx emphatically reminds us that money and political forefinger was the bourgeoisies primary interest. The Manifesto then discusses the relationship of the Communists to the proletarians. Marx says that Communists have been reproached for desiring to abolish the right of acquiring private shoes through the fruits of ones labor (67). However, he points out, laborers do not acquire any property through their labor.Rather, the property or capital they produce serves to exploit them. This property, controlled by the bourgeoisie, represents a social power and not a personal power. Changing it into common property does not abolish property as a right, but merely changes its social character, by eliminating its class character. Marx also points out that the The bourgeoisie is unfit to curb because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him.Society ca n no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society (65). The bourgeoisie precious man to exist in a subservient state of mind and wanted man to acquit the exploitative lifestyle they were providing for their daily existence. Moreover, What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its pin tumbler and the victory of the proletariat are any bit inevitable (65). Marx reminds us that it was impossible for man to continue to work and survive in such particular and harsh conditions successfully.If man continued to live like this it would lead to severe suppression and eventually to mans own demise. Therefore, Marx stresses in order for the proletariat to survive, they must drive against the bourgeoisie. Marx states, The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletariat parties formation of the proletariat into a class, the overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conq uest of political power by the proletariat (66). Marx understood that the proletarians had to revolt in order to experience freedom from their enslaved environment and divulge a communistic society.According to Marx, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single conviction Abolition of private property (67). Marx felt in order for the proletarians to escape the bondage they were encountering and to establish a Communist society this theory had to be implemented. This theory was not an pickax, but in fact a necessity for the proletarians to develop a communistic society. Marx ends Communist Manifesto in stating Let the ruling classes tingle at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. Working men of all countries unite (91). Marx strongly felt that man united throughout the universe and living in a Communist society would offer man the opportunity to live with the prospect of both justice and a qualitative lifestyle while livi ng in the world. He new this type of revolution would advert the bourgeoisie fall and crumble. The Second Treatise of Government written by John Locke places sovereignty into the hands of the people. Lockes cardinal argument is that people are tinge and invested with natural rights in a state of nature in which they live free from outside rule.Locke addresses the state of nature in order to define political power. In Chapter 2, Locke explains the state of nature as a state of equality in which no one has power over another, and all are free to do as they please(4). He notes, however, that this liberty does not equal the license to abuse others, and that natural law exists even in the state of nature. Each individual in the state of nature has the power to execute natural laws, which are universal (5). Lockes theory includes a host of moral beliefs and moral practices.Moreover, Locke points out and wants us to understand that the state of nature derives from a theory of justice an d from a set of rights. No one would have any rights at all in the absence seizure of a moral code applicable to human actions or any standard of just punishment. star topic that Marx and Locke had different views points on was whether private property was a natural right or not. John Locke believed that private property was a natural right, in fact he believed owning property was one of the most important possessions that mankind should seek and obtain.Locke emphasized that all men have the right to life, liberty and possessions (5). unrivaled of mans best attributes as well as his down fall is having freewill, whereby man has the option in making a hot or bad choice regarding his actions. Keeping this in mind, Locke realizes the grandeur of establishing clear and precise rules for man to abide by. Locke emphasizes that, in any civil society, situations will arise that have to be dealt with before the legislative can be assembled to provide laws for them.In these instances, the decision maker may economic consumption executive liberty or simply good judgment (95). The executive is qualified to take actions that are outside the framework of the laws (not breaking them, just not provided for by them), if their actions advance the societys best interest. He defines this prerogative as nothing but the power of doing public good without rule(95). Overall Locke believed this rule of hitchhike avoided chaos and would provide peace and order. Ultimately this thought process was for mans overall good and for his general welfare.Locke defines tyranny as the exercise of power beyond right (112). A just leader is bound by the laws of the legislative and works for the people, whereas a tyrant breaks the laws and acts on his own behalf. Locke notes that any executive body is not just a monarchy, but in fact ceases to function for the benefit of the people are a tyranny. Locke implies when the government is dissolved, the people are free to reform the legislative in order to recreate a civil state that works in their best interest before they fall under tyrannical rule.In addition, He expressed the radical view that government is morally have to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He favour representative government and a rule of law. However he denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel (126). Overall Locke believed that men were, by nature, born free and independent, meaning every person was a law unto themselves.That meant that they couldnt be subjected to political power without their own consent. Since every individual had consented being part of the community, they had the power, and the will to act as a whole. By consenting to being in a community, man is obliged to be a part of it, and to support whatever the general will is, for his sonny boy citizens. Hence, Loc ke was asserting that government had to be fair and equitable towards all its citizens. In addition, Locke believed it was crucial for citizens had the right to revolt if government was not meeting their needs.Marx and Locke were aligned along these terms although the ideas of Karl Marx did not have the same unverbalised trust in the inherent good of government that Locke had. According to Marx, government was not an entity through which change could be brought about. Rather, for change to happen and for the class struggles to be resolved it was necessary for the people to rise up and bring about the necessary adjustments to society. Works Cited Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. 1997 Prentice Hall Engels, Friedrich & Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. 1998 Signet Classics