How Marx’s position related to Liberalism
Summary of Marx’s political philosophy. How Marx’s position related to Liberalism
Order Instructions:
2000 word essay
2 PAGE DISCOUNT
Summary of Marx’s political philosophy. How Marx’s position related to Liberalism
Please ONLY USE resources below as provided in uploads. Please reference these resources accordingly.
“Marx, Marxism and Liberalism” by R. Farrell
“The Communist Manifesto” by K. Marx and F. Engels
Marx, Economics and Morality (from SEP)
Defence of Marx by Ellen Wood
Vigor on Marx and Modern Capitalism.
SAMPLE ANSWER
How Marx’s position related to Liberalism
Karl Marx, one of the most influential philosophers in the history of human existence Karl Marx, one of the highly influential philosophers in the history of human existence, came up with a philosophical system. His works stand out from the work of other philosophers who contributed on the subject of human philosophy. The basic human history stuff according to Karl Marx consisted of the principles of exploitation and class. In the context of modern capitalism, there exists three classes in the sense of Marx’s world: those who employ labor; the employed ones; and those in the third class of a single person business (Vigor 2004). These groupings according to Marx were the most significant in the study of human existence, whereby the classes are viewed as united within itself due to the common economic pitting sense. Marx went on to breakdown his philosophic theory based on modern capitalism. Marxists theory can be reconstructed upon the basis of some significant tenets of liberalism. In the discussion of how the position of Marx relates liberalism, inherent tensions based on the premises of liberalism can be differently interpreted. This paper summarizes Marx’s political philosophy and analyses how Marx’s position relates to Liberalism.
Exploitation and inequality are mentioned to be the main tenets of Marx’s theory on modern capitalism. In argument, the full corpus of the philosophical by Marx can be correlated to three significant postulates according to Immanuel Kant, namely: freedom, equality and rational autonomy. Rational autonomy of people is the state where individuals use reason in making decisions regarding the way of life that a person deems fit, without reliance on cultural, social, intellectual or religious tradition- whereby liberal individualism is one of the core tenets of liberal individualism (Vigor 2004). The following is the discussion of both exploitation and inequality as the core tenets of Marx’s theory.
Inequality
The ideals of freedom, equality and rational autonomy standout as the core tenets of the ideals of Marx regarding ethics and justice. It is in relation to such a vision that Marx conducts evaluation of the human society. He discusses the empirical facts that constitute the human society through an examination of contemporary and past social-political systems whereby he discovered that the history of the society is a struggle between classes. The entire spectrum of the human history has been characterized by oppression; the human existence facts and the livelihood of most humans are not anything near the ideal. It is plagued by oppression, injustice, inequality and lack of autonomy as the characteristics of the existence of humans (Vigor 2004). In Marx’s view, regardless of the fact that the conditions of life for most humans had been improved through the improvement of conditions of life for most humans, there was still a ubiquitous existence of inequalities in the human life. In his analysis of the 19th-century societies, he mentioned that there was a system of two classes that was developing in Europe. One of them was Bourgeois, which was composed of a few people who owned the land and controlled mines, trade, factories. The other class was Proletariat, which was an ever-rising salary-earning working class who were under employment of the Bourgeois. A small number of the people, Bourgeois, had attained a status of rational autonomy since they could pursue their lives comfortably the way they deemed fit; but a large population, proletariat, did not enjoy rational autonomy privileges (Vigor 2004).
The justification according to Marx for this huge disparity was unjustifiable. In other words, the interests of the classes outlined according to Marx’s reasoning irreconcilable, and as such that was the reason why they were inevitable for every human society, like in capitalism where it exists as a struggle between classes that takes the shape of a continuous civil war, characterized by the misery, attendant waste, and frustration which the class struggle causes (Karl & Friedrich, 2005). The frustration and misery of the conditions of class-struggle are increased among the employees by the fact that they are subjected to inherent exploitation. There was a revolt tendency in the lower class that was intensified by this fact, coupled with the boom-slump cycle, as a sure characteristic of a capitalist society (Karl & Friedrich, 2005). Marx reasoned that there was a defect in capitalist functioning, otherwise referred to as the ‘over-population crises. Further, the struggle was intensified by the fact that the oppressed population could not sufficiently purchase what was produced.
Exploitation
After an argument that there was no justification for the discrepancies between bourgeois and proletariat led Marx to address the issue of whether such a discrepancy was evil or ethical. He based his argument on the dynamic origin of the division between the two classes (Karl & Friedrich, 2005).
Marx argued that the bourgeoisie and its exploitation of the world-market has resulted into a cosmopolitan character in regard to consumption and production everywhere in the world. Marx detailed how the bourgeoisie through the dramatic improvements of the various production instruments had extended their exploitation to the lower class. They had subjected the economy to the town ruling, creating bug cities resulting to increased population. He also mentioned that the bourgeoisie find their way around crises that they have created through dominance and insufficient purchase of what is produced through the conquest on fresh markets, and more through the exploitation of the old markets that have been enforced by a mass destruction pf the production forces for high quantities. He notes that no sooner is the exploitation of the worker by the manufacturer, so deep at an end, that the worker receives the cash salary, than he/she is beset by the various bourgeoisie proportions like the shopkeeper, landlord, or the pawn broker, among others (Karl & Friedrich, 2005). His philosophy was, therefore, centralized on this philosophy on the basis of the exploitation of the many by the few. His initial argument is, therefore, that capitalism is unfair because it is based on Marx’s observation that all the profit from the capitalist is a product of worker exploitation. It an absurd secret devoid of harmony and mutual benefit, but based in a system where the extraction of profit is systematically done unjustly. However, at a certain point, the description of capitalism by Marx is not conclusive as he incorporates such words as robbery, embezzlement and exploitation – he believes that capitalism is unjust but he doesn’t belief that he believes it is unjust (Wolff, 2003).
Relation of Marx’s position to Liberalism
Karl Marx is still regarded to be the strongest of the critics of liberalism in the history of western political thought. In his analysis, he argues that liberalism is made up of manifold different political movements and outlooks, and goes on to argue that is underlined by the principled commitment to equality and the freedom of individuals (Wolff, 2003). His critique of Liberalism can be viewed through his dismissal of rights as illustrations of the egoistic and estranged individual of the society ruled by bourgeois in his sentiments regarding “On the Jewish Question”. In his arguments, it can be deciphered that he views human rights only as barriers rather than bridges to the freedom of the human. In his ancient assessment of human rights which is considered as the most mature assessment of rights, he is inherently negative (Robert, 2011).
The consensus surrounding the negative depiction of rights and rights by Marx, as well as their irrelevance historically in regard to communalism, are not confined to Marxists as it is confined for the case of Pushakanis. He even mislead the numerous scholars who adopted his arguments regarding rights and rights, whereby they echoed his arguments that the end of domination by one-class will also imply the end the rights and rights concept. It is clear that Marx had little patience for the considerations of bourgeois in the liberated society. There is good reason to confirm that the approach Marx took regarding this issue criticized the conventional liberal interpretation on the abolition of rights and rights in a community that is based on communism (Wolff, 2003).
The earliest appraisal of “on the Jewish Question” in regard to Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is a starting point that appropriately points out the earliest proof that Marx had a disdain for liberalism, and rights and rights. “On the Jewish Question” which was written in 1843, it was a time when Marx wasn’t conversant with the decisive role that was played by political economy historically (Ellen, 2011). In his recount, Marx mentions that when he was requested by the Jews to support a parliamentary petition so as to grant equal political and civil rights to the Jewish Community in Prussia, which is an initiative he endorsed positively. “On the Jewish Question” Marx does not agree with Bruno Bauer, who was formerly his mentor on the issue that Jews have to be granted political and civil rights until the renunciation of religion for Judaism. In his revelation of flaws that Bauer commits, it is clear that he is strangling liberalism. It is noteworthy here that political emancipation is a reference to the liberal state of the constitution that is not bound to private or religion property at the political level. The fact that he refutes these claims proves that he does not support liberal state of the constitution (Ellen, 2011).
In the outline of his theory, Marx proceeds to show that the unchallengeable rights of security, property, liberty and equality cannot exceed the bourgeois civil society contradictions. His arguments are that the right to liberty equals to not more than the protection of the competitive and atomistic individual from the dangers of the individuals they are in competition with. This is not to imply that Marx could not figure out any positive way to put rights into use. Actually, he embraces political emancipation by mentioning that it was a step in the required direction towards the human emancipation struggle, by stating that it is the last representation of huge progress towards human emancipation – it is a final human emancipation form in the framework of the social order that is prevailing (Ellen, 2011).
Fat forward, in Capital Marx manages to demonstrate that the equality and freedom of individuals in the exchange arena in challenged by capitalist approach to production, whereby capital domination over the level of labor triumphs under the realms of equality of rights. He argues that equality of rights and freedoms results to freedom and inequality in the capitalistic approach to the production sphere. Later on in Capital he argues that an equality of rights to all persons is actually a mere ‘deceptive semblance’ in the context of capitalistic approach to production (Robert, 2011). Therefore, in regard to liberalism, the assessment of rights by Marx assume two different dimensions. The first one is whereby he outlines the right of individuals as an advance historically, while on the other one he identifies that these individual rights also portray exploitive production relations in a community that claims to operate in an equal and free society. The point he eminently dwells on in Capital is that the abstract individual is viewed as a owner of commodities, whereby he proceeds to address independent producers of commodities, who socially relate in an environment meditated by community exchange at the marketplace (Robert, 2011).
In conclusion, exploitation and inequality are mentioned to be the main tenets of Marx’s theory on modern capitalism. In argument, the full corpus of the philosophical by Marx can be correlated to three significant postulates according to Immanuel Kant, namely: freedom, equality and rational autonomy. The ideals of freedom, equality and rational autonomy standout as the core tenets of the ideals of Marx regarding ethics and justice (Robert, 2011). It is in relation to such a vision that Marx conducts evaluation of the human society. Marx argued that bourgeoisie and its exploitation of the world-market has resulted into a cosmopolitan character in regard to consumption and production everywhere in the world. Karl Marx is still regarded to be the strongest of the critics of liberalism in the history of western political thought. In his ancient assessment of human rights which is considered as the most mature assessment of rights, he is evaluated to be inherently negative (Robert, 2011).
References
Vigor P.H. (2004). MARX AND MODERN CAPITALISM. Retrieved November 8, 2014, from https://library.newcastle.edu.au/articles/1937323.5491/1.PDF
Karl, M., & Friedrich, E. (2005, January 25). Retrieved November 8, 2014, from http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html
Wolff, J. (2003, August 26). Karl Marx. Retrieved November 8, 2014, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
Ellen, W. (2011). The University of Newcastle /All Locations. Retrieved November 8, 2014, from http://library.newcastle.edu.au/search~S16?/rpoli/rpoli/1,30,30,B/frameset~1943478&FF=rpoli3050 political theory and social change&1,1,
Robert, F. (2011). Marx, Marxism and Liberalism.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
