Are Rousseau and Marx Theorists of Democracy or Totalitarianism - Essay Example

Are Rousseau and Marx theorists of democracy or totalitarianism? The 18th and 19th century witnessed two of the greatest political philosophers whosepolitical ideas had long lasting and far reaching effects on the political life of the whole world. Rousseau, being the forerunner between the two, propagated socialism and equality and his theories triggered the bloody French revolution. Karl Marx, the most influential political thinker in the 19th century, believed that there are class struggles in the society and that a truly classless society could be created only with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Max’s theories are known as Marxism and acted as the strong pillar on which communism flourished. A common strain of socialist thought is dominant in their theories and both of them despised the capitalist bourgeois culture that was very much prevalent in the society. However, one cannot consider both to be advocates of democracy as they preferred totalitarian form of government. One needs to have a thorough understanding of both the theories in order to assess whether Rousseau and Marx were theorists of totalitarianism or of democracy. In a democratic form of Government there is decentralization of power; power is vested in the hands of the people. The country is governed by the elected representatives of the people and there is absolute freedom of expression. Any number of parties can be organized in democracy. There is no difference between the haves and the have nots in democracy as each one is provided equal opportunity. All are equal before law and equality of opportunity characterize in a democratic form of governance. On the other hand, in a totalitarian form of government power is shared among an elite group of the nation and they dictate terms upon the others in the nation. Totalitarianism is defined as “a single, dominate governing elite of all organized political, economic, social and cultural activities in a country by means of a single-party monopoly of power, including police repression, rigorous censorship of the mass media, centralized state planning and administration of the economy, and pervasive propaganda to inculcate the principles of the obligatory official ideology” (Political Terms We All Should Know) Thus, the fundamental difference between totalitarianism and democracy is that in the former there is monopoly of power whereas in the later there is democratization of power. It is essential to analyse the political philosophies propagated by Rousseau and Marx to know how far they are theorists of totalitarianism rather than democracy. To begin with, creating abundance on earth according to Rousseau was a luxury because he believed that luxury would breed corruption. He also argued that frugality was “equally necessary for a good and upright life in an individual and for a strong and healthy state” (Rousseau & Cranston, 1968, p. 17). Sparta was a good example for a frugal nation in his opinion. Though this argument would initially generate a conviction that Rousseau was an apostle of democracy, finally it proves that his theories are in favour of totalitarianism. Paradoxically, ‘thrift’ which he supported is against the individual rights for private earning and spending. Moreover, a political scenario in which absolute power is vested in a single body would possibly harm the freedom of citizens. Rousseau postulates that the individual freedom of the citizens should be limited by a social contract and that each one should be motivated by the general will of the society rather than one’s particular will. Unfortunately, his ideal state Sparta was only a small state with simple form of culture where every one could know his neighbour and had little disparities in social status. To bring forth such a political equality in a modern state with a vast territory is quite a Herculean task or a pipe dream. Therefore Rousseau’s theories become suspicious for a democrat. Knowingly or unknowingly he was highlighting a totalitarian ideology. The case was almost similar with the Marxian theories. Single party system and blood-shed class struggle that Marx propagated also finally paved the way for bureaucracy and a new social group ‘labour bourgeois’. The economic system of a democratic government is contrary to that of a communist nation. While democracy offers the citizens with the right for private ownership and free enterprising, all the resources and means of production under communism is controlled by the state itself. However, there are many who argue that Marxism is democratic in nature as the economic system tries to eliminate traces of inequality between the poor and rich. However, the Marxian concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is likely to result in economic inequalities as the working class people would in turn become richer in the long run. Decentralization of power, freedom of expression, freedom of press, democratic elections and the existence of opposition parties form the basic characteristics of democracy while all of these are absent in the Marxian totalitarian form of Government. Democracy ensures people participation and active involvement of every individual of the state in legislature, executive and judiciary. A democratic social setup to an extent agrees with the cultural, economic and social differences and aims at the equal enjoyment and participation of rights and duties. In communism, a superficial observation only offers an artificial sameness. The reason is that this proletarian overthrow is only a smarmy negotiation for the class division because instead of the uplift of the lower class, the so called bourgeois are forcefully brought down as if to wreck the garage to fit a car. Like Marx, Rousseau also despises property rights as he believes that “wealth enables some men to enslave others” and for him, “the very idea of possession excites men’s passions and provokes conflicts” ((Rousseau & Cranston, 1968, p. 21). Thus, he calls for a system of law that can “impose order and tranquillity” (Rousseau & Cranston, 1968, p.21) and for this, he offers the sovereignty of the republic as a possible solution” where the individuals are under the sovereign control of the state. Thus, a close glance towards the differences in the political ideologies propagated by Marx and Rousseau prove that they were more of theorists of totalitarianism rather than a democracy. Rousseau’s emphasis on equality has prompted many to misunderstand him as a supporter and advocate of democracy. In return for the submission of their natural liberty for the cause of the common good, Rousseau’s republic ensured legal protection and equal citizenship to its citizens. As Alex Scott (2004) points out, “equal citizenship in a republic may be established by means of a social contract, which is a declaration by the general will that civil laws will apply equally to all individuals” (Scott, 2004). Thus, it can be understood that Rousseau is advocating a totalitarian democracy, whereby he proposes to guarantee certain civil rights to the citizens within the social contract. However, Rousseau also establishes a clear distinction between the natural rights and the civil rights of the individual and held that individual’s social contract forces him to leave aside his natural rights for the common good of the republic. Similarly, he advocated the concept of civil religion which is totally against the secular religious perspectives upheld by the democratic way of life. Thus, one can undoubtedly state that a form of government that negates individual freedom and the freedom of belief cannot be considered as democratic. Marx makes a historical analysis of the bourgeois and feudal culture that dominated many societies and points out that there has always been an oppressed class in society-that of the proletariat. He observes that the existing bourgeois society has “established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (Marx & Engels, 2004, p. 62). According to him, the bourgeois society has capitalized on the means of production and the property of the land is in the hands of a few, which has resulted in class distinctions and inequalities. Marx is of the opinion that this political scenario should be overthrown by organized proletariat revolutions; the working class should bring the political power of the nation under its control and it is possible only when property and means of production come under its reach. However, he advocates abolition of private property and exhorts the communist state to take care of the capital and means of production of the nation. The state should have the power to confiscate private property. However, how far the dictatorship of the proletariat is capable of building up a classless society is debatable. In this regard, Marx postulates: When the proletariat during its struggle with the bourgeois is compelled to organize itself as a class, by means of a revolution makes itself the ruling class, and as the ruling class forcibly removes the old conditions, it eradicates the conditions of the existence of class conflict and of classes generally, and thereby its supremacy as a class. (Marx & Engels, 2004, p. 82) Thus, it is evident that Marx is advocating the moulding of a classless society and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the classless society apparently sounds democratic in nature; however, the proletariat themselves neither have the power nor freedom to makes use of the means of production or property as everything is owned by the state. Besides, under Marxian political philosophy there is the danger of the working class themselves turning out to be bourgeois in the long run. Thus, with its emphasis on the sovereignty of the state over the people, decentralization of power which is one of the essential characteristics of democracy never finds expression under communism or Marxism. Thus, having analysed the major political ideologies of both Marx and Rousseau, it can be concluded that both of them were theorists of totalitarianism rather than democracy. Both of them were dead against the capitalist bourgeois society and envisioned a classless society where everyone is equal. However, by negating individual freedom to the citizens and by attributing absolute power to the state or only to an elite body, both have moved away from democratic principles. Rousseau attributed sovereign power to the state and in a similar attempt to bring about a classless society; Marx resorted to the idea of totalitarianism by making the state the supreme authority. Even though democratic ideas of equality resound in their theories, they never were thoroughly democratic but were totalitarian in their outlooks. Works Cited Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Edited and Translated by L.M. Findlay. Broadview Press, 2004. Political Terms We All Should Know. 2008. Judi Clarke-Copeland/JCE Enterprises. 7 Dec.2008. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques and Cranston, Maurice. The Social Contract. Penguin Classics, 1968. Scott, Alex. Rousseau’s The Social Contract. 2004. 7 Dec.2008. Read More