Marx and Locke

Miriam D. Knox Dr. Soupios Political Science 304 April 6, 2010 Karl Marxs and earth-closet Lockes Ideologies The communist Manifesto, pen by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels and The Second Treatise of G overn handst written by John Locke be two distinct written pieces that describes their ideas and their philosophical beliefs regarding how fiat would theatrical role at its top hat. Moreover, both writers offer a detailed explanation ab bulge the numerous struggles that sm whole-arm has encountered regarding his existence in the world.In addition, they suggested policy-making concepts whereby they felt it would inspection and repair man to select about socialization that would solelyow man to weather a fair and qualitative life. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx uses a hulky portion of the book to give a historical perspective of society. He emphasizes from the very beginning that most of mans history has been based on economicalal pursuits and economic gains. As a result , he says that all hitherto exist society is the history of crystalize struggles (50).Throughout history, social change occurred when the full-bodied forces in society clashed with the conditions of production, resulting in massive social upheaval. This was always to the bring in of nonp areil social separate at the expense of a nonher. 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 solid is more and more splitting up into two great impertinent camps, into two great classes directly facing each other bourgeoisie and toil (51 ).The bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, consists of the relatively small number of plenty who owned or controlled the inwardness of creating wealth including land and raw materials mines, factories, and offices machinery and engineering science and who could employ wage graspers to work for them. Pro letarians perform most of the work in capitalist economies, but they had little or no control over their work- defys or over the wealth that they produced.The kindred in the midst of the bourgeoisie and the task is an exploitative whiz because the latter is paid less than the value that its labor creates, with the surplus of economic profits being kept by the bourgeoisie. maculation wages may rise if workers are well organized and during periods of economic growth, competition between capitalists compels employers to reduce labor costs as a lot as possible, particularly during recurring periods of capitalist economic crisis. Historically, the bourgeoisie had vie a quite revolutionary role.Whenever it has gained fountain, it has put to an end all feudal, patriarchal, perfect relations. (53). It has eliminated the relationships that bound people to their superiors, and now all remaining relations between men were characterized by self-interest alone (53). In addition, religio us fervor, valiancy and sentimentalism had all been sacrificed. Personal worth is now measured by win over value, and the whole freedom is that of Free Trade. Thus, exploitation that used to be conceal 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 cave in lost their veil of sentimentality and have been reduced to pure notes 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 do by and had no significance in spite of appearance society. The bourgeoisie made it clear that they were only concerned with increasing their political power.Furthermore, human conditions or any means of making humanity better was never consid ered nor important. In fact, Marx emphatically reminds us that money and political power 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 duty of acquiring private office through with(predicate) the fruits of ones labor (67). However, he points out, laborers do not acquire any keeping through their labor.Rather, the airscrew or capital they produce serves to exploit them. This property, controlled by the bourgeoisie, represents a social power and not a mortalal 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 rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a press out, that it ha s to feed him, kinda of being fed by him.Society can no lifelong alert under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no long-run compatible with society (65). The bourgeoisie wanted man to exist in a subservient state of mind and wanted man to take over the exploitative lifestyle they were providing for their daily existence. Moreover, What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the advantage of the proletariat are matesly inevitable (65). Marx reminds us that it was impossible for man to continue to work and survive in such limited and acetous conditions successfully.If man continued to live like this it would lead to severe quelling and eventually to mans own demise. Therefore, Marx stresses in mold for the proletariat to survive, they must disorder 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, conquest 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 develop a communistic society. gibe to Marx, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single meter Abolition of private property (67). Marx felt in order for the proletarians to wetting 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 fate for the proletarians to develop a communistic society. Marx ends Communist Manifesto in stating allow the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nil to lose but their chains. Working men of all countries unite (91). Marx powerfully 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 ju stice and a qualitative lifestyle bit living in the world. He new this type of revolution would shed the bourgeoisie fall and crumble. The Second Treatise of Government written by John Locke places sovereignty into the hands of the people. Lockes fundamental argument is that people are equal 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 destine 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 waiter of moral beliefs and moral practices.Moreover, Locke points out and wants us to understand that the sta te of nature derives from a theory of justice and from a set of rights. No one would have any rights at all in the absence of a moral code applicable to human actions or any exemplar of just punishment. One 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). One of mans best attributes as well as his down fall is having free ordain, whereby man has the option in making a devout or bad pickax regarding his actions. Keeping this in mind, Locke realizes the importance of establishing clear and precise rules for man to affirm by. Locke emphasizes that, in any civil society, situations will arise that have to be dealt with before the legislative can be assembled to pr ovide laws for them.In these instances, the executive director may exercise executive prerogative or simply mature judgment (95). The executive is qualified to take actions that are outside the poser 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 sound without rule(95). overall Locke believed this rule of thumb avoided chaos and would provide stillness 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 flora for the people, whereas a tyrant breaks the laws and acts on his own behalf. Locke notes that any executive trunk is not just a monarchy, but in fact ceases to function for the benefit of the people are a tyranny. Locke implies when the judicature 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 revolutionary view that government is morally induce to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained the principle of checks and balances to limit government power. He advance 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 ge neral will is, for his fellow citizens. Hence, Locke 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 meet 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