Political philosophies and their historical development

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, parliamentary political systems and relations between nation and state. On the other hand the ideas of Karl Marx, who explained an "unavoidable crash" of society with capitalist relations, into a new formation governed by the "dictatorship of proletariat" or a state with no private property, failed to be effective instrument of political and social regulation and did not meet the expectations, probably because the societies where those ideas were tested were not ready at all for radical changes. As both of the philosophies attract so much of interest nowadays, it's important to look close on them, compare them and determine main principles of their theories.

According to Rousseau's Basic political writings, a state has universal characteristics, which fundamentally are the following: it's a group of people, who proclaim their right to demand obedience to their commends on the certain territory and who rely on the fact that the majority of population on that territory accepts their proclamation on governing. Here comes a fundamental question of political philosophy when its appropriate to talk about the fact, that a group that calls itself a state, really has a right to rule de-facto and de-juror? Or it's even better to formulate the question in another way: has a group of people the right to rule the rest of the population who live on the territory that may be called a state? If to speak about philosophers who lived earlier than Rousseau this obedience to the government was associated with oppression of individual's opinion and his views if he accepted that government (which was usually an absolute monarchy or reign of chosen), then Rousseau had found the way when a person could save his opinions and views while accepting the right of the certain group to reign or rule. It was a social contract that solved this dilemma; a social contract according Rousseau is an idea of political obligations to the contract or a social agreement between a citizen and other members of society. Rousseau thought that people have a right to make laws until they try to legalize social interests not the interests of their own:

"The power of the laws depends still more on their own wisdom than on the severity of their administrators, and the public will derives its greatest weight from the reason which has dictated it" (Rousseau, Jean Jacques Basic political writings, p.104)

These fundamentals of Rousseau's On Social contract made Rousseau one of the theorists of modern democratic state as his ideas where the fundamentals from the democratic and civil liberties of citizens and equality of all people (not depending on their social position or heritage). Other works of Rousseau that are represented in his Basic Political writings make his philosophical views more clear and logical. In the first part of the book The discourses on science and the arts, the origin of inequality, and political economy Rousseau describes modern norms of political regulation in society. Being the supporter of equality Rousseau stated that the inequality of people is the result of private property as he wrote:

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains ... right the natural equality among men. It is this celestial voice that dictates the precepts of public reason to every citizen, and teaches him to act in conformity with the maxims of his own judgment,"(Rousseau, Jean Jacques Basic political writings, p.191)

This very sentence of Rousseau discovers his philosophical principles, the principles of inequality and "alienation" of society. But "alienation" for Marx and for Rousseau are quite different concepts, and that's why the methods of construction of more ideal and just society are quite different as we would see later.

According to his second discourse the matter of all human vices lies in equality (natural and moral). The first one is about physical differences while the second one is about social position and wealth. The development of civilization was to the most case the development of inequality from physical state to predominantly moral, as physical inequality which laid in strength, appearance, mental abilities and skills was developed to inequality in social position, power over others, domination and oppression.

According Rousseau's Political Writings there exist two ways to solve this problem. First solution is described as moral development through education; the second one is represented by Rousseau's social contract. Social contract had to solve the main political issue of inequality and alienation by general participation in public life:

"What man loses through the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything that tempts him and that he can acquire. What he gains is civil liberty and the proprietary ownership of all he possesses" (Rousseau, Basic political writings, p. 183)

According to Rousseau's theory social contract has to change people and make them work for "general will," the higher good and virtues of society in general. In order to accept the two opposite aspects of "social contract": formative and voluntary, Rousseau explains that a person has first to feel it's functioning, and only then he will understand it's value. That's why he pretends that people have to be "forced to be free." In addition Rousseau states that social contract protects and guarantees human freedom. If in general political thought freedom is a liberty to realize one's ambitions, without intervention of government, then for Rousseau it means primary independence (as individual is not ruled by his selfish ambitions, desires or public opinion) and transparency of social relations (as an individual represents that very subject of liberty):