Analysis Of Communist Manifest By Karl Marx

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a famous philosopher, who discussed about the class struggle in his Communist Manifest. Through a profound analysis of history, he argued that a revolution of the workers will be carried out due to capitalism and its exploitation of the workers, which lead to socialism where the welfare and interests of workers will be guaranteed by the state; and finally to communism, where the needs of the state and the need of work disappear. In his analysis of society, he said that workers do all the work while owners of business get all the money, and it is not reasonable. In other words, because workers work harder than owners, the biggest gain must be obtained by workers. According to Marx, the theory of surplus value, which

According to Hospers, a contemporary philosopher that argues for libertarian views, the government has to be limited with only one purpose, protection. In other words, he says that we have to argue for a government, which has protection as its main purpose. Also, Hospers claims that even though the government has three types of laws, only one is legitimate, which is laws protecting you from others. The other two, which are laws protecting you from yourself and laws making you help others, are just the result of government replacing its bounds. On the other hand, Nozick in his book, Anarchy, State and Utopia, argues for a modern libertarian view, which is very similar to Hospers view. He also argues for a limited government which has as its principal purpose to provide protection to its citizens. For him, citizens fundamentally need protection from: fraud, force, and breach of contract. Therefore, if a government is more than a night-watchman, he is violating the rights and liberty of its citizens. To conclude, I can say that both philosophers have similar points of view regarding legitimate laws and the role of the

Political philosophy has analyzed the various theories of justice for centuries giving as a result very different positions, which have always corresponded with the historical context where they were made. According to John Rawls, justice can be defined as fairness. He is positioned in favor of a reconciliation of the principles of freedom and equality through the idea of justice as fairness. Therefore, Rawls argues that if we were in the original position (a hypothetical situation when the government does not exist), we would arrive to these two basic principles: one that would offer the same fundamental freedoms for all individuals, and another referring to social and economic equality, which despite not require an equal distribution of income and wealth, it only allows economic inequalities whose purpose is precisely to improve the situation of poor people in our society. On the other hand, Nozick’s work is the libertarian answer to Rawls’s approaches. He defends a view known as the entitlement notion of justice. He also advocates for a social and economic model very close to anarchy capitalism. Moreover, he disagrees with Rawls’s conception of distributive justice with regard to economic inequalities. Nozick argues that people are entitled only to farms that they have initially acquired fairly or that have been transferred to them in a fair manner. For him, people are owners of themselves, their