Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Karl marx contribution to political sociology
Karl marx contribution to political philosophy
Karl marx philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Likewise, he talked about a new type of politics that would arise through the enlightenment. Believing that the government should develop through the enlightenment in order to protect equality and individual liberty. This was a very present issue in 1780s France while many people expressed their depression towards the regime that failed to provide relief. The problem with Burke’s stance on the French Revolution was that he also expressed his support for the American Revolution. How can he support one and not the other?
Paine promotes the French revolution while talking about human rights and the excess use of tradition and privilege in government. Edmund Burke believes that Natural rights and government are separate in their own respects, and government is not created in spite of natural rights. This is to say that the government is not responsible for the natural rights of its citizens and is very hard to distinguish from civil order. This opposes the revolutions ideology and the ideas of a constitution which state its government’s responsibility to govern the natural rights of its citizens and make sure all are treated fair. He also believes in the gradual reform of government and not the drastic changes of the revolution.
If Burke mainly aimed to relieve oppression of the government on people, Condorcet mainly aimed to seek individual freedom. Due to the social atmosphere of their era when people rose against dictatorship and tyrannies, their basic aim was to set up a democratic government which granted people of basic human rights and freedom. In order to achieve this, Burke, as a member of British Parliament, constantly urged the Parliament to limit their powers. For instance, he would propose to abandon the tax on tea. Condorcet had an intention of applying universal suffrage which led to his drafting of a plan to establish a new constitution, which was clearly a more aggressive action comparing with Burke?s.
Rousseau and Burke differ on the amount of power a government can have and both their reasoning make sense. Rousseau’s optimistic and idealistic nature is an inspiring one indeed, however, Burke seems to represent a more realistic examination. This is until Rousseau delves further into his blueprint, breaks down the mechanisms of the state, and outlines what makes a good government in his eyes. Rousseau outlines three main components of the state: the government, the sovereign, and the people. There are certain responsibilities assigned to the three roles in society.
He writes with a formal tone in order to seem more analytical to the reader, and begins his essay with a thesis that states what it means “to be conservative”. Burke’s writing is slightly less formal, and is written in the form of a letter to the reader, making him seem more relatable. The informal tone of his essay helps create the perception that he is like the “common man”, therefore his political beliefs would be better suited for the public. Though they are from two very different time periods, both authors have very similar political beliefs and effectively express the fundamentals of conservative thinking.
Human beings are not equal, so hierarchy is natural and essentially to burke a positive consequence from inequality. Additionally, he alleged that a social contract is one that the people of a given society have with their past. Thus, Burke responded to inequality by stating only some people should participate in politics, while others who were adamant for universal suffrage, should not. This belief stemmed from the understanding that only citizens who could set aside time to contribute in politics could. He felt this would eliminate all of the lower working classes, as it was assumed that the upper class were invited for political debate.
Marx and Arendt are two brilliant political theorists who pose different concerns, beliefs and ideals when it comes to the relationship between economics and freedom. Marx defines freedom as creative self- actualization which contrasts Arendt’s definition of freedom as worldly and eruptive action. Marx’s definition is more focused on the individual, which in turn will better society while Arendt is more focused on action as community. Marx believes in a society free from economic oppression by the elite while Arendt believes in one where poverty and politics do not meet. Economics and freedom, according to Marx, are intertwined in such a way that they cannot be separated.
The only signs which appeared of the spirit of liberty during those periods are to be found in the writings of the French philosophers... All those writings and many others had their weight; and by the different manner in which they treated the subject of government, Montesquieu by his judgment and knowledge of laws, Voltaire by his wit, Rousseau and Raynal by their animation, and Queenay and Turgot by their moral maxims and systems of economy, readers of every class met with something to their taste, and a spirit of political inquiry began to diffuse itself through the nation at the time the dispute between England and the then colonies of America broke out. Burkes entire argument revolves around the English experience of the glorious revolution and the fact that the glorious revolution had a basis on precedent and the framework of law.
Roland H. Stromberg (1990) emphasized that Burke considered the revolutionary ideas as philosophes’ mistakes. Political rationalists whose method was unrealistic, and plenty of abstraction (p. 36). Therefore, Burke not only adopted a counter-revolutionary attitude, but a counter-enlightenment one. The contrast between Burke’s favourable attitude to the American Revolution and his direct rejection of the French Revolution is unusual.
The questions of the whether social inequality is justified and the extent of government to address said inequality are some of the foundations upon which societies and economies are built. Two key philosophers on this issue – John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau – differ on this subject. In Two Treatises on Government, Locke holds that individuals have a right to property derived from their labor, citizens consent to the existence of inequality in society, and governments are instituted among men to protect said property. In contrast, Rousseau writes in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and The Social Contract that inequality should be strictly limited and that governments have a duty to act in the best interest of its citizens by maintaining
Compare and contrast of The French Revolution and The American Revolution The American revolution and the French Revolution are two major incidents happened in the 1700s, which had intense social impacts on both French and American societies. In general, the American Revolution was more successful than the French revolution. The similarity between them is that the citizens in both countries, both faced the block of common economical development of the government. However, there is a difference that makes the American revolution succeeded while the French revolution doesn’t.
Foundations of Sociology (SOC10010) Mid-Term Essay: Question: ‘’Discuss three main ideas from the Communist Manifesto.’’ Answer: In this essay I have been asked to discuss three main ideas from the ‘’Communist Manifesto’’, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. To do this I will summarise three main ideas from the text and critically analyse them.
Thomas Paine essentially wrote Common Sense for the common man. Being a pamphlet, its structure and simplicity made reading easy for those who were literate. Its minimalism enabled citizens in the colonies to unite under one common cause — independence against Britain. He was inspired by both John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government as well as Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s
His ambition for universal equality, collective justice, and classless society transfixed me. I never thought that a classless society could be possible; however, my understanding of his work leads me to envisage the possibilities of a classless society. Marx’ work demonstrates a man who genuinely wants societal change. “The goal of sociology would not simply be to scientifically analyze or objectively describe society, but to use a rigorous scientific analysis as a basis to change it” (Little & McGivern, 2013,
Karl Marx (1818-1883) considered himself not to be a sociologist but a political activist. However, many would disagree and in the view of Hughes (1986), he was ‘both – and a philosopher, historian, economist, and a political scientist as well.’ Much of the work of Marx was political and economic but his main focus was on class conflict and how this led to the rise of capitalism. While nowadays, when people hear the word “communism”, they think of the dictatorial rule of Stalin and the horrific stories of life in a communist state such as the Soviet Union, it is important not to accuse Marx of the deeds carried out in his name.