rousseau vs marx essay

Enter Your Search Terms to Get Started! Rousseau's Discourse on the Origins of Inequality The debate over the distribution of property and the unnatural inequality it produces has long troubled political thinkers, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau mused in his Discourse on the Origins of Inequality: It is obviously contrary to the law of nature, however it may be defined for a child to command an old man, for an imbecile to lead a wise man, and for a handful of people to gorge themselves on superfluities while the starving multitude lacks necessities. (Rousseau, p. 869) Thomas Paine wrote in his classic The Rights of Man that he wished to [restore] justice among families by a distribution of property. (Paine, p. 177) This sentiment was seemingly echoed by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto when he spoke of the.the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth. (Marx, p. 34). However, a more careful review of the texts in context (For these authors cannot be read in a political vacuum, the ramifications of the environment in which their arguments originated must be considered) will reveal to us two arguments that while similar in theory, differ in implementation. Paine's proposal for redistribution of property was seen by some as radical for his time, (a time devoid of any progressive tax scheme of note) but still in line with leading liberal bourgeois political values of the day. Marx's argument, formed nearly a century later, after the success of the middle class in seizing a sizable share of power from the old nobility has rendered many of Paine's aspirations a reality. While Marx saw the proletariat revolution as the next step in the evolution of society, Paine would argue that society had already reached an apex in the manifestation of liberal democracy, and Marx's attempt to further equalize society would serve to destroy the very bourgeois political values that.
    Using the URL or DOI link below will ensure access to this page indefinitely Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:    New York, USA Processing request. Illinois, USA Processing request. Brussels, Belgium Processing request. Seoul, Korea Processing request. California, USA Processing request. If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQ File name: SSRN-id1174482. ;   Size: 164K You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ. Quantity: Total Price = .99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)   If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern. Andrés Álvarez Sr.Universidad de los AndesJimena Hurtado Universidad de los Andes, Colombia - Department of Economics July, 24 2008 Revista de Economía Institucional, Vol. 10, No. 18, First Semester 2008 Abstract:      We present a comparison between the works of two great critics of the market economy: Rousseau and Marx. It shows their similarities and divergences, most important of which is the place they give to economic analysis in their intellectual and political theories. Whereas Marx built his political and scientific criticism on economic analysis, Rousseau believed this analysis could not be the starting point for understanding social organization. Their monetary theories can explain this difference. Note: Downloadable document is in Spanish. Number of.
Rousseau and Marx in Comparative Perspective Introduction Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Max shared a hesitation about the liberal project articulated in part by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.But their hesitation stemmed from different sources.For Rousseau, the problem was a specifically political; namely, the problem of liberal individualism and consent as the sole component of producing government.Rousseau’s alternative was a highly participatory ‘General will’. Marx’s criticism was more radical.In short, economics was the problem and only by overturning the economic class system could a viable democratic state be achieved.Taken to its logical end that state would actually “wither away” because it would shed its political and economic character.This essay will address these concerns in depth. Rousseau’s Social Contract Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both articulated contrasting, yet similar, versions of the social contract.Hobbes’ social contract relayed how rational, self-interested humans gave up the constant “state of war” for protection from the sovereign.In Hobbes’ famous maxim, life in the state of nature was “solitary, nasty, brutish and short.”Locke, on the other hand, described a state of nature that was less bleak.For Locke, “laws of nature” existed that helped to restrain the behavior of humans.But Locke also believed that man’s ability to trade and barter would eventually lead to the creation of money.Once money — and its rampant acquisition — became a prevalent aspect of society, government would need to be created to protect property and moneyed interests.In each case, individuals consent to give up their freedom in the state of nature to obey a sovereign. Rousseau is in some ways troubled with the aspects of Locke’s and Hobbes’ earlier formulations. Rousseau wrote that Hobbes’ made men nothing more than “herds of cattle,” and that any human willing to.