Locke believed in limited, representative government but Rousseau believed in direct government by the people. Locke believed that the powers of a king or government were to be limited in scope. He believed that a He believed that a ruler or government should exist only to protect life, liberty and property, and if the government overstepped its authority to the point of totalitarianism, the people would have the right to overthrow such a government.
Leave a comment The philosophies of Marx and Locke are surreptitiously similar, as their fundamental assumptions appear to coincide rather harmoniously. These assumptions hold that power is maintained by the people and can be demonstrated through consolidation of numbers.
The differences are that while Locke centers his ideas around political sovereignty, Marx lived during the unique time of the industrial revolution and therefore addresses the issue of economic sovereignty and exploitation. This is the fundamental idea of democracy, to combine into a community where every man sacrifices executive power for joint control of the state.
Government is the authority that arose from the necessity to resolve discrepancies or inconveniences that came about as man gained property. He lived in a later time of more generous liberal political rights than Locke had, yet so many people were still miserable.
The worker suffers from a severe lack of power under the poor manufacturing conditions Marx observed in The worker was essentially a slave to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, forced to work overtime without pay, forced to work without stopping for breaks, forced to work in crowded and diseased conditions, and forced to work as children.
This was indeed a form of slavery, because the only way to survive was to work for competitively low wages at manufacturing facilities under the control of the bourgeoisie.
Should they dare to question or disobey they would lose their job, be unable to support themselves as no other work existed, and starve and die.
This is economic authoritarianism. The way to counter economic authoritarianism is to form a collective union that can take power out of the hands of the ruling class supervisors and put it into the conjoined hands of the proletariats. Power in the economic sense is derived from ability to produce goods, which previously was maintained in its entirety by the bourgeoisie, is now stripped from them if enough workers each stop doing their part in the production process.
This is economic democracy, so demonized as communism by the United States thanks to the historical struggle of the Cold War. Marx describes freedom a human being contemplating himself in a world he has created.
Each works to create a world of his own, through their labor, and in doing so becomes a free man. However, Marx noticed that many workers did not live in a world they created but were born into it without a choice, and any attempt of theirs to change or recreate it would be suppressed by the ruling class.
Through their work they never achieved emancipation, but rather alienation from the world and everything in it. The bourgeoisie too are alienated from the world, but their wealth keeps them at ease and comfortable enough to maintain the stasis.
Partly in thanks to the darkly absurd Cold War which pitted capitalism against communism — two economic systems — in a political and military struggle. This fails be a logically accurate determination of which system produces the greatest society because it fails to incorporate a dialectic as posited by Marx.
The only way to achieve a synthesis of the greatest ideas in the world is to have a conversation about them in which you must hear the antithesis to your thesis — a concept that frightens the insecure man.
The fact of the matter is that completely unregulated markets give way to exploitation as they politicize misery, an idea first put forth by Marx.
Complete government control of economic systems has also been tried and failed, so maybe instead of embracing one or the other in their entirety there should occur a dialectic between the two, to synthesize the greatest aspects of both philosophies into the greatest system we can think of as a species.
Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published.Jan 18, · Unlike Hobbes, who favored an absolute monarchy ("absolutism"), Locke favored representative government, with power held by the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Nov 08, · - Compare/Contrast with Graphic Organizer Mr.
Richey discusses the works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two of the most influential philosophers of government in the seventeenth century.
Karl Marx (philosopher, author, economist) Philosophy Compare and contrast the theories of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Marx on citizenship, individualism, private property and the state? Hobbes’s theory has far more in common with fascism, than it does with Locke’s theory. To say that they were both social contract theorists is like saying that Adam Smith believed in the labor theory of value and Karl Marx believed in the labor theory of value, therefor Smith was a Marxist or Marx was a Smithian.
May 22, · Compare and Contrast the Philosophies of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Karl Marx In the idea of human nature; origin of state, the nature of government, the rights of regulation can be drawn as the reflection of insightful philosophies of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx.
By understanding this within the context of human. John Locke versus Karl Marx Essay Words 6 Pages Two of the most influential and celebrated modern political thinkers, Karl Marx and John Locke, have made countless insightful and compelling arguments, expressing their ideas on various conditions of the individual, state, and the interactions between the two.