Karl Marx and his Philosophy - Coursework Example

Topic: Karl Marx Answer: There are infinite interpretations of the "philosophy of Marx", from the heart of the Marxist movement and in its exterior. Marx was neither interested in self-ownership nor personal autonomy. The work of Marx and Engels on political economy was influenced by Marx observation of the harsh realities of life under capitalism in Lancashire cotton mills in the nineteenth century; this led Marx to conclude that capitalism was in crisis. This led to his historical materialism theory, which says that social phenomena do not exist in isolation; rather they are interconnected, and any analysis of institutions must be done to include looking at their historical developments and contradictions in order to reconcile them Human relations in society must be approached in this light. The observations of Marx and Engels led to their work, which is a critique of capitalism. The analysis of Political economy from the point of Justice and freedom: Karl Marx is the most erudite socialist thinker to emerge in the 19th century. Although he was greatly involved with social, economic and political ideology gained rapid recognition in the socialist movement after his death in 1883. While in Brussels Marx devoted him to an extensive research on history and elaborated what came to be known as the materialist conception of history? He developed in a manuscript (published posthumously as the German Ideology), of which the basic thesis was that "the nature of individuals depends on the material conditions determining their production. Marx pointed out the history of the various modes of production and predicted the abolition of industrial capitalism and its replacement by communism. He devoted himself to the study of political economy in order to determine the causes and conditions of this crisis. Marx discovered the law of development of human history. The simple fact is that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc. Therefore, the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch. By laying the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved. Karl Marx discovered the special law of motion administering the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The unearthing of surplus value abruptly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark. Marx authentic mission in life was to contribute to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions, which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat. Marx's contribution to our society has been enormous. His contemplation is not the comprehensive system evolved by some of his followers under the name of dialectical materialism. The very dialectical nature of his approach meant that it was usually tentative and open-ended. There was also the tension between Marx the political activist and Marx the student of political economy. The economic factor in society and his analysis of the class structure in class conflict have had an enormous influence on history, sociology, and study of human culture. The Germans have long since demonstrated that in all spheres of science they are equal, and superior, to other civilized nations. The political economy is the theoretical analysis of modern bourgeois society and presupposes developed bourgeois conditions. Following the wars in the wake of the Reformation and the peasant wars and especially the Thirty Years' War, it could not establish them in Germany. Arguments of Political Philosophy: Its theoretical feature was based on a study of political economy. German political economy as an independent science dates also from the emergence of this party. The foundation of this German political economy is the materialist conception of history whose principal features are briefly outlined. All social and political relations, all religious and legal systems, all theoretical conceptions which arise in the course of history can only be understood if the material conditions of life obtaining during the relevant epoch have been understood. The former are traced back to these material conditions, was a revolutionary discovery not only for economics but also for all historical sciences. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. This proposition is so simple that it should be self-evident to anyone not bogged down in idealist humbug. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production. The antagonistic is not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence. The productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The social production men carry on; they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will. These relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material powers of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society--the real foundation. These raise legal and political superstructures and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production in material life assesses the general character of the social, political and spiritual processes of life. This consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social forces of production and the relations of production. Therefore, mankind always takes up only such problems as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, we always find that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production--antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism. IT is arising from conditions surrounding the life of individuals in society. At the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. Karl Marx was the critique of Private Property: Rousseau’ Clarification: The anarchists oppose private property (i.e. capitalism) because it is a source of coercive, hierarchical authority and elite privilege ("Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism. . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery," to use Proudhon's words - What is Property, p. 251). Therefore, for all true anarchists, property is opposed as a source of authority, indeed despotism. "The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign - for all these titles are synonymous - imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once and property engenders despotism.. Property is the right to use and abuse. In other words, private property is the state writ small, with the property owner acting as the "sovereign lord" over their property, and so the absolute king of those who use it. As in any monarchy, the worker is the subject of the capitalist, having to follow their orders, laws and decisions while on their property. This, obviously, is the total denial of liberty (and dignity, we may note, as it is degrading to have to follow orders). Little wonder, then, that anarchists oppose private property as Anarchy is "the absence of a master, of a sovereign" [Op. Cit., p. 264] and call capitalism for what it is, namely wage slavery! The capitalism usually attempts to justify private property by claiming that "self-ownership" is a "universal right" (see section B.4.2 - "Is capitalism based on self-ownership?), it is clear that capitalism actually makes universal self-ownership, in it's true sense, impossible. For the real principle of self-ownership implies that people are not used in various ways against their will. The capitalist system has undermined this principle, and ironically, has used the term "self-ownership" as the "logical" basis for doing so. Private Property: Rousseau’ Clarification: The most enigmatic thinkers of the 18th century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's colourful life and consistent defiance of social conventions are reflected in his political writings. In 1750 Rousseau wrote the themes, which he was to develop in much of his subsequent political philosophy. The competition had asked for an essay on the impact of the arts and sciences on human morals. Rousseau argued that these were merely the seductive characteristics of a modern society in which mankind had lost his natural liberty and entered a moral decline. Rousseau equated virtue with innocence which once lost could never be regained. Rousseau's greatest and most influential work The Social Contract was published 1762. He had been innocent but unfulfilled and incapable of morality. The process by which morality might be achieved was the same process, which seemed inevitably to corrupt and degrade him. His account of the social contract differs radically from earlier contract theories in that when individuals contract to enter society, each makes that contract simultaneously with the others and with himself. Each is a part of the sovereign, which he is contracted to obey. From the isolated selves of individuals a collective entity is formed which can both legislate for and embody its individual members. For Rousseau the general will is not created by the sovereign but discovered by it. His political philosophy centers on developing political institutions that facilitate discovery of and adherence to the general will. The resulting state is one that is regarded by Rousseau's critics as totalitarian. Rousseau insisted that the object of political right must be liberty and equality, and it is to these ends that his philosophy was directed. And despite the undisciplined character of his work, philosophers such as Kant and Hegel acknowledged their debt to Rousseau. "The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this impostor; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.'" ["Discourse on Inequality," The Social Contract and Discourses, p. 84] The libertarian socialism can continue to affirm self-ownership whilst building the conditions that guarantee it. By abolishing private property, there can be access to the means of life for all. This is making self-ownership a reality by universalizing self-management in all aspects of life. Political Thinking, Political theory and civil society: Steven M. DeLue kindness is the basis of relationships of these relationships of immediacy. The kindness is nothing more than my direct effort to respond to the felt needs you communicate. In all perspective, what takes place in immediate relationships is that people are helping each other to both define and then to realize their potential as human beings. The most awful element of mediated relationships that both Judaism and Christianity have promoted since Jesus is that these relationships aid and encourage dualistic thinking among people. Here individuals see themselves as citizens and as private persons, as members of a religious order and as citizens, and as in Augustine as people in the city of man Steven M. DeLue. What each dualism does is to divide a person against him or herself, making that person think of themselves as two or four or six or more different people, split by schisms that cannot be overcome. Given this line of thought, the situation is made worse today with multiculturalism. When we talk about human identity, we often define this idea in terms of group or ethnic or religious loyalty For Buber, dialogical communities create communities of inclusion. Here (1975, 97) inclusion is not based on an emotion such as empathy. Empathy indicates only a part of the self, and to emphasize this part solely excludes my ability to forge relationships to others that involve all aspects of my self with all aspects of others’ selves. An inclusive relationship is one in which we are able to experience the felt experience of another and make that felt experience part of our own un Steven M. DeLue 127 distending. The other becomes part of our life, and we are in a position to aid the other in a variety of ways, including making available to him or to her our own understandings and perspectives. The other now has an additional way to understand what he or she experiences, and through this understanding the other learns important information about him or herself. In a liberal civil society, people join groups at least initially because the groups provide settings through which individuals are able to manifest their core values and develop various capacities. The walls segregating groups are permeable in a liberal civil society because people enter and leave groups during the course of pursuing their lives. The individuals learn how to communicate across difference, and to create the prospects of accommodation among diverse groups (DeLue, 2002, 10-16). This indicates that in order to achieve a civil society in which human centered, mutually enhancing discourse is possible. There should be a state that protects the rights of each person. This state, in particular a liberal Steven M. DeLue 131 democratic state, would recognize the existence of many diverse ways of life and points of view. This advocate a civil society in which people could communicate across their differences to locate their own identities and define their own potential. Conclusion: Karl Marx analyze private property within “political economy” is a problematic force and runs counter to justice and freedom. Marx adherent of an adequate critique of private property Rousseau portrayed a better analysis of the relationship between private property, justice and freedom. It is visualised that Marxist critique of capitalism sees the exploitation in society that is based on the efforts of the bourgeoisie to earn profit from the labour of the proletariat. They produce goods and services that enable the capitalist to make a profit after paying the workers wages. The profit the capitalist makes is the surplus value of the workers labour. The state is constructed to use the superstructure-law –built on the relations between the owners of the means of production and the workers. The political economy is presented as seeking everyone interests. This in Marxist ideology is to mystify the reality of political economy as an instrument of oppression in the hands of the ruling class. The Marxist view of political economy says that political economy is a means of social control used by the ruling class to dominate the working class. Bibliography: Pierre J. P. (2007), Why are anarchists against private property? available at: < http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secB3.html > [accessed on 12/12/2007] Rousseau, J. J. (2007), Philosopher of the Month, available at: < http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_jun2003.htm > [accessed on 12/12/2007] Steven, K. (2006), Lecture of Modern European Intellectual History, available at: < http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html > [accessed on 12/12/2007] Marx, K. (2006), Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Whitworth University, available at: < http://www.whitworth.edu/academic/Department/Core/Classes/CO250/Readings/fr_marx.htm > [accessed on 12/12/2007] Kant, I., (1983), The Metaphysics of Morals, Part II, The Metaphysical, PrinSteven M. DeLue 133 DeLue, S. M. (2002) Political Thinking, Political Theory and Civil Society, Boston: Alllyn and Bacon. Dworkin, R., (1986), ‘We Do Not Have a Right to Liberty’ in Stewart, R.M. (ed.), Readings in Social and Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Taylor, C., (1989), Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Marx, K. and Engels, F., (1974), The German Ideology, Arthur, C.J. (ed.) (London: Lawrence and Wishart) Read More