Right to Rule? (Karl Marx

¶ … right to rule? (Karl Marx & James Madison

Who has the right to rule? Understanding the concepts of democracy of Karl Marx and James Madison

Two of the most important political thoughts in human history -- Democracy and Communism -- sprung almost a century apart from each other, but both have been compared constantly in the centuries that followed. The seemingly contrasting principles of democracy and Communism was further reinforced with the emergence of the Modernist Project, wherein proponents of democracy like the United States and Britain pitted this political thought against Communism, and in effect waging a Cold War against the Soviet Union and China. The eventual fall of Communism served as confirmation that indeed, democracy remains unchallenged as a political ideology, and, in the words of political theorist Francis Fukuyama, democracy is the "end of history" of humankind.

Is democracy indeed the 'end of history,' the only legitimate form of political ideology that existed in human history? Does this mean that being so, only institutions subsisting to the democratic ideal have the right to rule? Looking at how democracy and Communism have been implemented and have led to the rise and fall of regimes and administrations throughout societies in the world, it seems that a democratic form of governement has the only right to rule. However, an analysis of works and critical analyses of James Madison's and Karl Marx's ideas and thoughts on democracry demonstrate that both used democracy as the foundation of their political thoughts and ideas. And democracy being the foundation of Madison's and Marx's ideas, the political ideologies they promoted are considered legitimate in their own right. The section that follows discusses their ideas further, exploring the political thinkers' concepts of democracy, as it relates to democracy per se, and Communism.

James Madison's political ideology -- that of democracy -- is best reflected in The Federalist No. 10, entitled, "The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection" (1787). Writing from the point-of-view of an individual who is about to become one of the Framers of the Constitution, Madison expounded on his political ideal, one that is founded from the individual and the majority. Indeed, democracy's core is based on the idea of liberty -- liberty of the each individual member of the civil society, and Madison considered it "essential to political life."

In Federalist No. 10, Madison also acknowledges the paradox that democracy presents to the individual. Under democracy, people would have the "diversity in the faculties of men" while at the same time, they also have "uniformity of interests." The point between these two contrasting points is where democracy can be found: it seeks to unite these diversities and strengthen people's interest towards a common goal, which is to preserve the liberty they are enjoying without great detrimental effects to social order. Indeed, in a democratic form of government, diverse ideas are unified under the common interest of attaining and preserving humanity's liberty. However, each individual does not give up any of his/her "faculties," and Madison resolves this issue through the concept of representativeness:

"[e]xtend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motiveto invade the rights of the citizens…where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary."

Rosen (1996) reaffirmed Madison's ideas on liberty, representativeness, and democracy. In his analysis of Madison's essays in The Federalist, Rosen analyzed that Madison's ideas on democracy are primarily a "theoretical standard," and although his ideas are at best theoretical in nature, they "define the political task, describing its contours with genuine precision" (568). Centuries after, Madison's ideas remained true to form, demonstrating through the United States, as an example, that democracy is working and in fact, may be the only form of government that can thrive in the present time.

Comparing Madison's ideas against Karl Marx's proposition of a new form of government (or aptly, a new social order) through Communism, salient differences emerge that highlight how Madison's democracy and Marx's Communism can be found in the opposite poles on the spectrum that is the political school of thoughts. Marx's The Communist Manifesto reflected human history's transition from a traditional to a capitalist society, and eventually, to a Communist society. This transition was a result of a history-long struggle of the "oppressed," who Marx referred to as the "proletariat," the social class that will eventually elevate the status quo of society from an oppressive to an egalitarian one -- that is, through Communism. Marx argues that transitions throughout history prior to the establishment of a Communist societydid not offer any the "class antagonisms" that existed in society:

The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs… But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other… despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely canish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

Marx, in fact, refers to capitalism as a form of 'multiciplity' of previous societies that have supported class antagonisms. He asserts that it is not any different to societies that it preceded, and only Communism completely addresses the need of humanityto establish a new world order, wherein class antagonisms -- in fact, social class itself -- will be abolished. Under a Communist society, class antagonisms will cease to exist because this new social order eliminates the concept of private property: all resources will be allocated equally among all members of the society, and the Communist society will be headed by a government whose role is to ensure a fair resource allocation and indoctrination of the principles behind this new, classless society.