ID: 76072 Paper Type: Pages:

ID: 76072 Paper Type: Pages: 6 Topic: Karl Marx and Individualism Citation Style: MLA Bibliography: 3 Due: 2007-04-25 22:00:00 Worth: $48.00

Info: Topic: Karl Marx is best known for his incisive analysis and acidic criticisms of capitalism, including the ideology that reinforces and legitimizes it. Marx is especially critical of modern theories of individualism. What is Marx's critique of individualism as developed and demonstrated in the political writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two of the greatest champions of individualism? Be sure to provide specific examples of individualism in their thought as you explain Marx's critique.

**Must use these sources for bibliography**(No other sources): 1. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 2. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 3. Karl Marx, Selected Writings, ed. Lawrence H. Simon (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 1994)

Message from Professor: **Make sure you answer the question directly and thoroughly. Avoid digressions, tangential discussions, or other diversions that do not relate directly to the question. **You should use properly cited evidence from the readings to support your argument. Whether you are using direct quotations or simply paraphrasing, you should always indicate the page numbers. Use quotations wisely; avoid using quotes that have no obvious connection to the topic under discussion, and do not let quotations take the place of your arguments. **Your papers should reflect independent thought, not a recitation of irrelevant facts or other extraneous information. Feel free to draw upon material covered in lectures and discussions--as long as such material helps you make relevant points that advance the discussion. You should not use any outside research for this paper other than the books listed above.

WRITERS NOTE: for your exact copies of the book I used the chapters where the quotes are from for easy access to fill in the page # Karl Marx and Individualism

Karl Marx is known for his Communist Manifesto and Capital, writings that would changed the course of history. His praise for and eventual call for the doom of capitalism is his legacy. But these notions are grounded in the thought that the individual is not as desirable as the community. Hobbes and Locke both base their arguments on the notion that the individual is the driving force in society. It has been that way since man's origins in nature in which social constructions were built to protect the individual from the forces of nature in which individualistic notions were prevalent. Marx, on the other hand, believes in a completely opposite view in which society created the individual. Furthermore, Marx has an understanding of the forces at work in the world as being those based on class, in which people unite under a common interest and not their individual goals and needs. Society may be at war to Marx, but it is a class war and not an individual war that has to be regulated by governing institutions. To those who champion individualism, governments are established by the individuals to protect the individuals, but to Marx, governments are established to protect the capitalist class's interests from the workers and thus Marx has a vastly different outlook on the forces which drive history. Marx criticizes the individualistic thoughts of Hobbes and Locke, who both champion the individual. Thomas Hobbes wrote the Leviathon which is known for a state of society that is ruled by a Leviathon. Notable to this society is the fact that it is made up of individuals, each acting for his or her own benefit. This is because a state of nature is anarchic as each individual acts for what he or she wants. This is evidence of the importance of the individual and the basis for which society is dictated- that people are individuals in an anarchic world. Hobbes writes regarding the individual that, "Nature hath made men so equal...yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable that one can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he" (Hobbes Ch XIII). This means that even if there are differences between individuals, as there naturally are, and even though some people are more talented than others, there is not so much difference that gives someone the right to rule over and make decisions for someone else. To Hobbes, this power of the individual meant that only an absolute sovereign could effectively govern because individuals are always in a state of war with other individuals. Power must be given to the sovereign absolutely because there is no single interest among the numerous self-interested individuals of society. Thus Hobbes has based his theory on the most effective governing body because of the power of the individual. Within the state of nature, to Hobbes, man seeks to better himself through competition and reputation, further evidence of his belief in the individual. Likewise, Locke's notions on the governing powers and his famous social contract are because of his understanding of individualism. John Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, argues for the individual as it is the individual that has authority. He believes in the individual and the individual's ability to make his or her own choices. Like Hobbes, Locke believes in a state of nature that is based on anarchistic individualism, and although he differs from Hobbes on many issues, those issues are irrelevant to the fact that Locke is an individualist. Furthermore, governments arise for Locke because people are ineffective to properly govern themselves and make the right decisions in the state of nature. Locke writes: "We must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man" (Chap 2). This means that Locke's ideas about government are based on this sole state of nature, of the individualistic nature of man. Man then tries to secure a peaceful life through government and this includes the right to property as man is individualistic and seeks to protect his property from intrusion. This classical notion of the individual is contrasted by Marx. Marx writes in his Grundrisse that "human beings become individuals only through the process of history," which is in sharp contrast to Hobbes and Locke who believe that the state of nature is a state of individuals (Chap 29). To Marx, humans become individuals as a species becoming involved in society and engaging in herd-like activity as a means of exchange. As man becomes tied more and more to his property he is thus becoming tied to the community. In this way, the individual is created by the community and this logic is backwards to that of Hobbes and Locke. To Hobbes and Locke, the individual has property and in a state of nature without governmental organization it is impossible to keep one's property. But to Marx, the notion of property is created not by the individual, but by one's interactions with the community. In this way the individual is created, and not existing in nature as defined by Hobbes and Locke. This initial and extremely different perspective on the individual sets Marx apart and suggests that Marx's state of nature is much more primal than Hobbes and Locke. What Marx is saying is that man is a species in the state of nature and this differs from Hobbes and Locke who appear to have added some sort of socialized man to their view of man in the state of nature. This lends itself towards Marx's view of society based on classes. This is in itself different than Hobbes and Locke who emphasize the individual. By emphasizing class, Marx is stipulating that man's actions are not individualistic, but are dictated by the forces around him. For example, a capitalist has no alternative but to exploit workers and seek to acquire more capital. It is by the very nature of the system, and thus people are less free than Hobbes and Locke would assume. This is not to say that Hobbes and Locke are identical, but that Hobbes and Locke believe in the free will to a greater extent than Marx. Hobbes wrote on the subject of liberty that "each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature" (Ch XIV). This is praise for the individual and a man's ability to make choices for his own self interests. While Marx does not doubt that people will act in their best interest, they are constrained by factors that are class related. Because there is no individual to Marx without a society, there is no individual without class because class is a byproduct of society. Ultimately, Marx's perception of the individual flips Locke and Hobbes' perception upside down and Marx is able to provide for a different perspective on the individual. Although within capitalism Marx understands that an individual seeks a better situation for himself, his choices and the reasons for making his choices are based upon the capitalist system that society has instituted. Furthermore, Marx's view of history and the motivations of history are much different than Hobbes and Locke. To Marx, all of history is a class struggle. In the capitalist system laborers give their labor to the capitalists. Locke writes about the body and labor that, "nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his" (Chap 5). This means, to Locke, that a laborer is working with his own property, his own body, as an individual. Marx differs in this assumption as not only does the laborer have very little choice in the system, but also that while laboring "a crowd of people who are unknown to each other," and while working together "this common interest which they have against their employer, brings them together" (186). This means that classes are formed as a result of labor and the individual, who is already caught in a system, loses even more of his or her individuality because of the forming of socio-economic classes. This class system lends itself for workers to then come together under common interests, a theme which is very un-individualistic. The bonds are therefore strongest and most effective when the individual gives way to the common economic interests of the class. This highlights the greatest difference between Marx and those who favor individualism in which Marx believes the origin of social conflict to be because of class struggle. Locke understands the state of nature to be, "wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species," which highlights the notion of an individual who has freedom in nature (Chap 2). Furthermore Locke adds that "it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him" (Chap 2). This notion, according to a Marxist view in which capitalists exploit the workers would mean that society is constantly in a state of war because in the capitalist system the capitalists are imposing their will and exploiting the workers. This, by Locke's definition, would mean that individuals are constantly in a state of war. Marx, on the other hand, believes that the exploitation of the capitalists causes a class struggle which encourages community rather than individual warfare. This is also tied into the political sphere to Marx. Marx writes of the ruling political entity as "the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests" (221). This means the political formations are a result of the class formations which result from the formations of society and community and not based upon the individual or the desires of individual. Marx's idea about what the government is and what its future will be is thus different than Hobbes' and Locke's notions. Hobbes and Locke both believe in a form of a contract between the individuals and a ruling class of some sort that will help to protect the individual from intrusions. For example, according to Hobbes the ruling class is an absolute sovereign to reign on the individualistic anarchy present in nature. This sovereign representative of the people "consisteth in the end for which he was trusted with the sovereign power, namely the procuration of the safety of the people, to which he is obliged by the law of nature," (Ch XXX). This illustrates that to Hobbes the government is therefore created to protect the individuals. Likewise, Locke believes in a social contract in which people unite for protection. But to Marx, the classes formed in society create a ruling class that either try to consolidate their power or are in danger of losing it. There exists no social contract. The ruling class is not for the benefit of the masses. This is largely because of the fact that Marx does not have an individualistic view of the factors that effect the world, but believes in the exploitation of people and creation of classes which come to conflict. Most of Marx writings suggest an understanding of the world that is not in terms of individualism as Hobbes and Locke, despite their differences, have championed. This ties into Marx's ideas that eventually the classes that are dominated by the capitalists will come to rise and overthrow the system and create a much more communal society- communism. However, before this can become a reality Marx has to define the world in different terms than Hobbes and Locke. People have common interests and unite behind those interests to Marx; those interests are being exploited as workers or being the capitalist doing the exploiting trying to protect and further one's interests. Therefore people are united by a common interest one way or the other. There is no individual freedom as the system, whether feudal or capitalist, tells people what they should do and how they should further themselves. The natural state of freedom is not existence to Marx. Furthermore, Marx does not believe that people are necessarily at a state of war, but rather are acting rationally in a system dominated by classes and the need to accumulate resources. Ultimately, Marx's entire way of thinking is a critique of the individualistic ideas of Hobbes and Locke.