Introduction
Being a member of a particular state or country provides an individual with rights as well as responsibilities. This means that just as much as an individual expects the government to perform its duties, the same is expected of them.
Famous philosophers have delved into this issue over the past centuries dating back to human existence all in the view of exploring the interaction and relationship between the state and the people. Overtime, most philosophers have influenced the role of politics and intellectual thought with some of their theories and school of thought going a notch higher to become the foundation of modern day democracies and states.
This paper has particularly focused on two famous philosophers whose ideas still proliferate and apply in the modern society. These are Karl Marx, the father of socialism and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose famous work ‘The Social Contract’ has been the basis for democracy and the will of the people.
Jeanne Rousseau
‘Men are born free, yet everywhere they are in chains’. These are famous words from his widely acclaimed work, ‘The Social Contract’. Rousseau was of the opinion that the civil society has failed to bestow upon human beings their natural birthright to freedom but has rather confined them to the false sense of security from the state.
According to Rousseau, the citizens are a collective grouping which general views resonate loud in the political sphere of the state and are supposed to uphold the greater aspect of representing the general will of the people. It occurs when human beings as individuals hold dissimilar views and desires respective to their personal positions but the sovereign carry the day, representing the general will of all the people.
Rousseau therefore proposed means by which the awareness of the general will would be achieved and this would be through the convening of the sovereign in regular periodic assemblies (Simon 76). This would be done individually or through the elected representatives of the sovereign as reflected in most modern democracies.
Therefore, with reference to his definition of the sovereign and the general will, Rousseau was of the opinion that citizens had the obligation to attend the assemblies organized in order to deliberate upon their current state, proposing ways and means of improving their lives as citizens and also to ensure that the general will of the people was respected and achieved by the state. This goes further in indicating one important role of citizens, that of voting.
According to Simon (308), voting or the electoral process is the benchmark used to determ the democratic state of the country. The outcome of this process should reflect the general will of the people. Citizens therefore have the customary duty of voting on issues that require a general decision, such as during referendums, as well as electing suitable representatives who would properly represent them in the national arena ensuring their voices are heard.
Rousseau concurs with Simon’s view and indicates that it is crucial that human beings exercise their independence by going to such gatherings, for whenever they break the trend, or the elected representatives fail to do so in their place, their independence is lost.
Blais & Moore (P 431) are also of the opinion that resonates well with Rousseau and Simon’s view that of the popular undertaking where the government usually goes against the general wills of the people hence the need for constantly surveying the government’s actions. This explains the existence of a frictional relationship between the sovereign and the government.
All in all, Rousseau aim to make society as democratic as possible has played a determining role in the evolution and development of democracy in modern states. Furthermore, his discussions of the courts influenced the structure of checks and balances preserved in the instituting papers of the United States.
Karl Heinrich Marx
Marx, a famous philosopher of the 19th century is known today as the father of socialism (Dick, Blais and Moore 377). Some of his works and ideas were influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s but differ greatly particularly where the state and the role of citizens is concerned.
His work and ideas are mainly based on the medieval age, where the segregation of society was not due to differences in culture, race, creed or color but rather due to class differences. These differences did not arise due to income or status but rather due to property. He classifies society based on the three main classes discussed below:
- Bourgeoisie- this represented the owners of the means of production such as machinery and was the first class in the society’s class tier. Their main source of income was profit.
- Landowners- just like the title depicts, these were land owners, a valuable means of production and they took second place. Their income was from rent.
- Proletariat- these were the last grouping in the social structure. They were comprised of the peasants who sold their labour for a wage.
Marx felt strongly against the selling of labour for wages as it tended to distinguish the individual from his/her real being or nature, an aspect he referred to as commodity fetishism. The role of citizens of the state was therefore in accordance with the place in the social structure as indicated above. For instance, it was a common belief that political power was determined by power over production. The role of the bourgeois class therefore was to use this power, vested upon them in virtue of their power over production (capital).
Marx’s time was characterized by the rise of capitalism, practiced by capitalists, whom he described as vampires sucking workers’ blood. He was a widely acclaimed critique of capitalism and a protagonist of socialism and proposed a communist society that would replace the capitalistic one.
He viewed socialism as the means to achieve development without the exploitation of the workers (Berlin 249). Marx proposed a new society where capitalism would end through the organized actions of an international working class and individuals would be in a position to act short of being restricted by the labor market authorities.
Comparison between Marx and Rousseau on the role of citizens
Similarities
According to Garsten (p 430), although the two philosophers differ in means of approach and methods, they agree on the following:
Both philosophers deliberate on the issue of inequality. Rousseau advocates for the establishment of a regime that will arbitrate problems associated with disparity in community. Marx is of the opinion that class division in assets should be eliminated through the communal possession of production means.
Both focused on the requirements of the society and not personal wants.
Differences
Rousseau was of the opinion that the existence of the government was due to the need to conduct the executive duty of imposing laws and overseeing the day-to-day functioning of the state (Workler & Gorsten 248). Marx, on the other hand, theorizes on the collapse of the government or the state in general due to the revolt of the international working class.
According to Marx, political power is determined by the power of production, meaning that the more means of production one had, the greater was the power. Rousseau however indicates that the political power of the state rests with the people as they reflect the general will of the sovereign.
Marx views the society as being segregated on the basis of social classes. Rousseau, on the other hand, views society as comprised of a collective unit of people whose general will surpasses the will of the individual.
They also differ on the areas in society where change is needed. For Rousseau, it was the political realm that needed change whereas for Marx, it was the radicalization of economy that would eventually do away with inequality.
Wise words
‘Brothers, we all belong to one family; we are all children of the Great Spirit; we walk the same path; slake our thirst at the same spring; and now affairs of the greatest concern lead us to smoke the pipe around the same council fire’ (Reisert 65).
This represents a part of Tecumseh’s speech, an iconic Indian leader who strived for an independent native Indian state. He advocates for unity to achieve a common goal, that of protecting the Indian territory from encroachment by foreigners. Marx and Rousseau would agree with Tecumseh’s views since both are advocates of unity and equality.
Works Cited
Berlin, Isaiah. Karl Marx: His life and environment. New York: Sage Publishers, 1978. Print.
Dick, James, Jeffrey Blais and Peter Moore. Civics and government. New York: McGraw-Hill publishers, 1996. Print.
Reisert, Joseph. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: A friend of virtue. New York: Oxford Publishers, 2003. Print.
Simon, Thomas. Democracy and social injustice: Law, politics and philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill publishers, 1995. Print.
Workler, Robert and Brian Gorsten. Rousseau, the age of enlightment and their legacies. New York: Oxford Publishers, 2012. Print.