Rousseau’s and Marx’s Works Problems: Discussion Essay

Introduction

Speaking about the problem of modernity in the works by Marx and Rousseau, we should remember about the utopist basis of their views. And really their works can be considered as the carriers of antimodernity.

Main text

So, “Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx in fact is the only work in Marxism which has some results of the Revolution. They are the following:

1. Privacy abolishment.
2. The abolishment of the bourgeois families where woman is “an instrument of production”. Here Marx speaks a lot about the role of woman and the disadvantages in her life, though he says nothing about the communistic family.
3. The changing of the home (class) education into the public education.
4. The abolishment of the bourgeois individuality Marx considers that the concept of the bourgeois individuality demands reformations and abolishment, great changes to the new ideas and ideals.
5. The abolishment of national differences and antagonisms. People do not have right to exploit each other as well as no nation should be exploited.
6. The process of economy becoming state. The workers use their political power for taking the capital from bourgeoisie and to centralize all the instruments and as a result to enlarge the size of producing powers: “The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” (Marx, p451)

Despite all variety of questions touched by K. Marx, the basic and precisely outlined subject of his researches, in opinion of experts, was capitalism and the problem of motivation of labor activity connected with it. Opening the understanding of capitalism, K.Marx says that the term “modern capitalism” covers not all forms of capitalism existing now, but only the West-European and American capitalism. Thus, the predicate “modern” specifies not historical time, but to the degree of development of on what it is applied. Two moments – the representation of capitalism as universal transhistorical process and the concentrated expression of the capitalistic nature not in its basis, and in its superstructure named by “spirit of capitalism”.

K.Marx could not arise the theories of labour motivation and business activity because of two reasons: he did not pay enough attention to the human factor and in his concept economic forces have overshadowed the social and cultural ones. Though he is the author of the most advanced variant of the cost labour theory and he has devoted many pages to the description of anatomy of labour process.

However the change of the out-of-date forms of capitalism by the newest was represented as the process of replacement of simple commodity manufacture actually on capitalist, like the removing of the formal submission of work to the capital by the real one. K.Marx could not open the plurality of forms of capitalism because according to him the modern capitalism was preceded not by the adventurous capitalism (or any other form), and simple commodity manufacture. The set of capitalisms do not enter to his unique scheme of evolution social-economic formations.

According to Marx, a capitalist era has begun in XVI century, and occupies much more modest piece of history – approximately three hundred years (including its early stage). The modern science – both economy, and sociology (it is enough to glance in the western monographs and textbooks) – considers, that capitalism is maximum three hundred years, but not three thousand.

The way of reduction of the number of applicants and increases in severity of criteria of selection was kept by K.Marx also. Into the number of attributes of developed capitalism he included a special way of forming the powerful market of wage labor, transformation of formal labor submission to the real, dialectics exchange and consume costs and great variety of other parameters. But the socialistic society was described by Marx very abstractly and with the big love. It should be mentioned that the specific “spirit of socialism” is present in Marx’s views. It only refers to as a spirit of collectivism.

Then, in connection with appearing of a private property, classes, economic operation and the state approximately 5-6 thousand years ago, the mankind has deviated a “right” way. There were three delays in a way – slavery, feudalism and capitalism. According to historical measures of time it took about three thousand years for such stops. Those during which, according to scheme by Weber, there were first gleaming of capitalism and its some mature forms had time to appear. According to Marx, it should be replaced by more progressive regime – communism.

Thus, rationality characterizes the worldwide-historical process in the theories by K.Marx. He speaks about the process of accumulation of progressive features of economic and social life. Marx focuses on the elements of atheism, accounting and collectivism. From the classification point of view Marx belongs to the supporters of the universal-historical theory of social and economic regime of public life: “All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property” (Marx, p456).

Speaking about materialism and idealism, we should protect Marx from another misunderstanding: economic interpretation of history often is named as a materialistic interpretation. So it has been told by Marx. This phrase has extremely increased the popularity of this concept. Actually it is absolutely senseless. Marx’s philosophy is no more materialistic, than Hegel’s philosophy, and its historical theory is no more materialistic, than any other attempt to explain the historical process by the means which are available at the disposal of empirical sciences. It is necessary to understand, that logically it is compatible with any metaphysical or religious belief – in the same way as the last is compatible to any physical picture of the world. The medieval theology itself gives the methods by means of which it is possible to prove the similar compatibility.

The obvious specification should be brought from the very beginning. Social structures, social types and sights, similarly to coins, are not erased quickly. Once having arisen, they can exist for centuries and as different structures and types find out various abilities for survival, we almost always find, that actually existing groups and real national behavior more or less deviate what they should be if we have tried to deduce them from dominating forms of production. Though it takes place everywhere, especially evidently it is visible, when extremely the steady structure is completely transferred from one country to another.

It is worth mentioning that Marx has many contrasting points in the understanding of causes of transition to capitalist modernity.

Marx did not consider his works to be antimodern because in his point of view they had the sense of the current importance of that time.

The positions of Marx express the complementary of the ways of development of East and West. Marx’s in general is the mirror of Western logic with his position of the scientific realism. Marx’s task is the complicated scientific analysis of the historical situation and the inventing of the program which would allow releasing the exploited class.

In this context it is possible to see the motive which is a characteristic of Marxism: the simple motivation of the communist movement. Marx ignored the priorities and antagonisms which are not important for the economy – racial and language, religious and national feelings.

According to “Communist Manifesto” by Marx the solving of the main world problems is adjusted to the radical reconstruction of the way of producing, including the centralization of transport, combining the landing and manufacture, the abolishing of differences between urban and village territories.

K, Marx sees only Western countries, especially Great Britain. The economic causes which prepared the ‘place’ for the revolutionary fighting exist only in Western Europe. Thus, communism (according to the version of 1848) will be formed only in the Western Europe.

Nevertheless there is one more current issue: the relationship between communistic Western Europe and the rest of the world.

Another work that is considered to be antimodern is the “First Discourse” by Rousseau. The author of this work considers that arts and science destroy humanity. Of course now it is considered to be antimodern. Because now people pay a great attention to science and arts: “It will be difficult, I sense, to adapt what I have to say for the tribunal before which I am appearing. How can one venture to blame the sciences in front of one of the most scholarly societies in Europe, praise ignorance in a famous Academy, and reconcile a contempt for study with respect for truly learned men? I have seen these contradictions, and they have not discouraged me. I am not mistreating science, I told myself; I am defending virtue in front of virtuous men.

Integrity is cherished among good people even more than erudition is among scholars. So what am I afraid of? The enlightened minds of the assembly which is listening to me? I confess that is a fear. But it’s a fear about the construction of the Discourse and not about the feelings of the speaker. Equitable sovereigns have never hesitated to condemn themselves in doubtful arguments, and the most advantageous position in a just cause is to have to defend oneself against a well-informed party, who is judging his own case with integrity.”(Rousseau,p247)) So, these words show that the human morality is much higher than the scientific exploration of the world.

It is very important to mention Rousseau’s attitude towards the historical progress. It should be mentioned that it was strongly connected with his attitude towards the role of science and arts in the life of society. In his First Discourse he says that the development of arts and science (the false entertainments, according to his opinion) causes the worsening of ethics.

Rousseau’s esthetical criterion is the supremacy of feelings and close relationship with nature.

People should glorify the creations of God and the main creation is a Human.

A special attention Rousseau pays to simple people, to their sufferings, love and problems and he opposes them to the rich and spoiled people, who are full of egoism.

Summary

Rousseau sees the importance in the feelings of every person and he considers emotions to be the basis for knowledge. He underlines that sensationalism rules physical and spiritual activities of the person. Mind, according to Rousseau, leads to mistakes and confusion. That is why he considered science to be an obstacle for civilization, because everything should be based on feelings and emotions. Of course it does not correspond to the issues that we have today when everything is based on scientific technologies and artistic views.

References

Rousseau Jean-Jacques, Discourse on the Sciences and Arts (First Discourse) and Polemics (Collected Writings of Rousseau), Dartmouth; 1st edition (1992).

Marx Karl, The Communist Manifesto, Penguin Classics; New edition (2002).