Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
. . while defending these institutions themselves" (1034-1035). Peled further argues that Rousseau was not able to solve this paradox and it was one of the reasons why he became increasingly pessimistic about modernity. But Rousseau's attempts to reconcile the contradiction in his approach are worth looking at in details.
Although Rousseau abhorred inequality that rose out of private property, he did not hold any illusions about modernity. He believed that private property became an essential component of the modern bourgeois society and economic relations in the modern era could not be free from errors and corruption. So, Rousseau thought that the best solution to modern inequality was to allow private property in limited amounts and regulate it through the state that represents the common will. In a perfect society imagined by Rousseau, the state would honor the right to possess private property but at the same time would retain the right to regulate and redistribute private property among its members' estates. Members of the society would not own more than they needed for subsistence and would qualify for their estates by actually working on them. Private property acquired through financial speculation or interest in this society would be rejected. Ultimately, private interests would be subordinated to the common will. Rousseau explains: "The right which an individual has to his own estate is always subordinated to the right which the community has over all; without this there would be neither stability in the social life, not real force in the exercise of Sovereignty" (cited in Peled 1038). So, instead of abolishing private property, Rousseau proposed that citizens are allowed to possess it but at the end subordinate their possessions to the general well-being of a larger society. "Since Rousseau himself was committed to private property," as Peled puts it, "and did not recommend the removal of that crucial 'natural resource' from the possession of his citizens, all he could recommend economically was a reduction, through radical self-sufficiency, of the potential for corruption inherent in the market economy" (1042).
Rousseau certainly could anticipate that objections could be made in response to his proposal. One could argue that Rousseau's model of an ideal society would hinder economic productivity and development. Rousseau responded to this by saying that economic productivity was not necessary. Without economic development, there would be no accumulation of wealth and investment, and consequently a simpler way of life would lead to basic economic equality. "It is better for the land to produce a little less and for the inhabitants to lead better-regulated life," he argued. "Everyone should make a living, and no one should grow rich; that is the fundamental principle of the prosperity of the nation; . . . since [under this system] superfluous produce is not an article of commerce, and is not retailed for money, it will be cultivated only to the extent that necessaries are needed" (cited in Peled 1039-1040). Rousseau insisted that the society could not control material and psychological forces generated by economic development. He rejected the notion that progress should be constantly pursued because, while satisfying old needs, progress would inevitably generate new needs, competition, and dependency.
Rousseau, however, could not sustain his own solution to the problem of inequality. He realized that the forces of economic development could not be stopped. Initially, he believed that his model could be applied to small societies but then understood that maintaining primitive economy was not possible anywhere. These thoughts made Rousseau pessimistic about the future of modernity. Peled explains: "Realizing that his 'principles of political right' could not be put to action in the real world, and that the small rustic community he idealized was a disappearing phenomenon, Rousseau despaired of his ability to help mankind avoid the pitfalls of modernity" (1044). So, he did not call for any radical struggle to address the problem of modernity. In contrast, Marx believed that the problem of inequality should be addressed through revolutionary struggle.
Both Rousseau and Marx agreed that modern economic system based on private property led to exploitation of the majority by the few, but they offered different solutions to address the problem. Marx saw the problems of the society primarily in economic terms whereas, for Rousseau, the primary yardstick for evaluating social forces was morality. Nevertheless, they both came to similar conclusions with regards to the role of property in the society. They differed in their solutions because Marx believed in revolutionary action. Rousseau wanted an orderly society that limits citizens' rights but provides stability and equality for all. Marx's radical solution to inequality was overthrowing the bourgeois elite and abolishing private property. Rousseau advocated limited but regulated possession of private property in a society based on primitive economic relations. He became pessimistic though and did not call for radical actions, whereas Marx shook the foundation of market economy in the 20th century.
Alvarez, Andres and Jimena Hurtado-Prieto. "Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx on the Critique of Economics. Some Insights from their Analysis of the Role of Money." Academic paper, Phare, Universite de Paris X -- Nanterre. Available at http://rousseaustudies.free.fr/articleHURTADOALVAREZROUSSEAUMARX.pdf
Bozarth, David. "Rousseau Closer to Marx than to Locke." Academic paper, Sonoma State University (2004, June 15). Available at http://dbozarth.com/Poli_Sci_Notes/Rousseau_Closer_To_Marx_Than_To_Locke.htm
Brenkert, George, G. "Freedom and private Property in Marx." Philosophy & Public Affairs, 8.2 (1979): 122-147. Available at http://www.jstor.org/
Chattopadhyay, Paresh. "Marx's First Critique of Political Economy, 1844-1994." Economic and Political Weekly, 29.31 (1994, Jul. 30): 54-59. Available at http://www.jstor.org/
Engle, Eric Allen. "Social Contract and Capital: Rousseau, Marx, Revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (2008, Sep. 15). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1268564 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1268564.
Marx, Karl. "The Communist Manifesto," in David Wootton, (ed.) Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Indianapolis, in: Hackett Publications, 1996. Print.
Peled, Yoav. "Rousseau's Inhibited Radicalism: an Analysis of His Political Thought in Light of His Economic Ties." The American Political Science Review, 74.4 (1980): 1034-1045. Available at http://www.jstor.org/
Rotenstreich, Nathan. "Between Rousseau and Marx." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 9.4 (1949): 717-719. Available at http://www.jstor.org/
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. "Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality among Men," in David Wootton, (ed.) Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Indianapolis, in: Hackett Publications, 1996. Print.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. "On the Social Contract," in David Wootton, (ed.) Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Indianapolis,…[continue]
"Marx And Rousseau On Property" (2012, May 13) Retrieved October 25, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/marx-and-rousseau-on-property-57751
"Marx And Rousseau On Property" 13 May 2012. Web.25 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/marx-and-rousseau-on-property-57751>
"Marx And Rousseau On Property", 13 May 2012, Accessed.25 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/marx-and-rousseau-on-property-57751
Rousseau believed that a sovereign should rule the people, yet the State should be directed by the general will of the people and if some did not wish to go along with the rest they should be forced to do so by everyone else and "be forced to be free." Rousseau was a not really a Communist at heart, and believed that man should have a sovereign to act upon
NOZICK'S ENTITLEMENT THEORY Robert Nozick's Entitlement theory is mainly connected with the issue of property and transfer of property but it is essentially based on the issue of Justice and how it comes into question when property is being transferred or owned. Nozick believes that property rights need to be studied in the social context to understand how transfer and owning of property can give rise to the issue of justice
" Oddly enough, this passage paints a brighter picture of Nietzsche than popular thought attributes to him. Nietzsche here presents a direct path -- unlike Rousseau -- out of the swamps of nothingness: the path is not necessarily religion, nor is it secularism. Rather, it is a lack of contradiction. Nietzsche urges each man to evaluate just what he believes and desires and understand for himself whether he wishes to credit God
Jean Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx are famous political philosophers, whose ideas in many ways had influenced the development of social formation in modern times, and what is most interesting is that ideas of both were realized in certain ways on practice. Jean Jacques Rousseau prophesied modern democratic institutions that laid into the fundamental of many modern nations; his ideas of "social contract" are the main principles of modern democracy,
Fichte separate right from morality and is it a good thing? Should they be separated? Fichte's Philosophy of Right and Ethics Why does Fichte separate right from morality and is it a good thing? Should they be separated? Moral and political anxieties animate Fichte's entire philosophy and his perceptions to these issues that are innovative and at times tied together. His responses to Kant's vital philosophy in 1790 was a retaliation to
Classic Liberalism Tradition Classical liberalism tradition comes from a tradition of thinkers who developed an ideology, rather than a political system. Although many say that classical liberalism stopped after the nineteenth century, libertarians argue that is no interruption in the classical liberal tradition. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx offer a critique of various aspects of the Classical Liberal Tradition argument. Jean-Jacques Rousseau Jean-Jacques Rousseau was somewhat supportive of the liberalism tradition, which argues
For Hobbes, individuals must be a larger population beneath authority, and those individuals must, by the very nature of the perpetuation of the species, cede all rights and control over to that authority. It is also well within the natural rule of law that there might be abuses of authority, and that even though rebellion might be expected, it is up to the individual to maintain that the State