Marx And Rousseau Analysis

Man is an “Egon Zoon Politikon”. More than two centuries ago, Aristotle wrote that man was a Political Animal Being. This means that man was made to live in society and evolves or interacts among other men. Since then, throughout the ages, men evolved and went from historical phases of conservatism, revolution and social progress. Emancipation could be defined as the process of reaching self-determination and the control of his own physical, moral and intellectual capacities. Rousseau, Kant and Marx lived in different eras and countries, yet, they share different perspectives of the same idea that Emancipation of man is possible. What are the obstacles to self-determination of men according to Rousseau, Kant and Marx? And how do these authors

Thus, by overpassing alienation and oppression, man can set the right balance between individualism and collectivism.

Initially, emancipation is needed as society constraints the self-determination of men by alienating him from his freedom. As a matter of fact, society is primarily corrupted by the existence of private properties that led to inequalities in society. As for Rousseau, man can be understood by analysing his state of nature. Rousseau defines natural man as a man who is totally self-sufficient; he does not depend on anybody. The key notions that guarantee man’s freedom are autonomy and self-sufficiency. His behaviour could be compared to the one of an animal; in the sense that his actions were mainly driven by sensations: “Man’s first feeling was of his existence, his first care of preserving it” (see The Second Discourse, Second Part, page 114). There was no point to hinder neither himself nor another human being. From this necessity to self-preservation, Rousseau introduces the concept of perfectibility. Perfectibility is the expression of man’s reason. It is also the ability of man to adapt throughout the time, by this faculty, man proved his virtue as well as his vices

By being used to restraints, man has lost his self-consciousness as part of a community. Kant emphasizes this aspect of the fearful condition of man by pointing out his “immaturity”. Immaturity is the idea that one is not able to take his own decisions, and suffers a clear absence of self-determination. Thus the immature man is not the master of himself. He becomes used to a “guardian” that tells him what to do and what to think (see. What is Enlightenment? 8:36, p18). The idleness of man has led him to becoming unaware of his world. Indeed, non-emancipated man lacks education, because he is not given the freedom to express himself and to acquire a critical mind. As a result of this immaturity, man is not autonomous. In other words, for Kant, man depends on external thoughts and orders. Using Kant’s expression, we can say that the immature man has no use of his own understanding which excludes him from the public debate and poses an obstacle to his emancipation. Subsequently, by not participating to the political and public life of his society man enters a state of alienation. For Rousseau, man should emancipate himself by being in control of his own faith. Otherwise, man would be considered a slave (The Social Contract Book I, Chapter IV, page 159). By “slave” Rousseau means that man is dominated by rulers of his society. When political regimes of a State disable man from expressing his