Essay topic: How do the writings of Marx differ from those of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill? Karl Marx, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill all share a commonality of being thinkers in the subject of political economy. Smith is often cited as the ‘father of modern economics’ because of his well-known work on The Wealth of Nations in 1776 which marked the beginnings of classical economics. Later Ricardo and Mill, influenced by Smith, developed their own theories in their writings: On the Principles of Political Economics and taxation published in 1817 and Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to social Philosophy in 1849 respectively. It was Marx who coined this term ‘classical economics’ to refer to the economics of Smith, Ricardo and Mill.
Origins One evident inconsistency with communism and consecration is the source of ideas. Karl Marx was raised with a belief that “man’s innate goodness and reason was blocked only by social, political and religious barriers, and other artificially created rules” (Miller et al. 18). From his schooling at the University of Berlin to his family life, he continually pushed for his ideas. He wanted to establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” which means that the working class majority would rise to power over capitalist minority.
The first main difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the mid-1860s is their beliefs. The Liberals led by William Gladstone, were general believers of Gladstonian Liberalism. This was essentially “peace reform and retrenchment”. Gladstone’s own financial policies that were based on balanced budgets, low taxes, and laissez-faire (self-help) were better suited to the developing capitalist society of Britain in the mid-1860s. The Liberals were not very big supporters of the Monarch and wanted the Monarchy out of the political area and it just to be solely the government.
Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other. King’s own account of his philosophy of nonviolence indicated the extent to which he was influenced by Thoreau’s theoretical framework for thinking about civil disobedience and political obligation. Thoreau has confidence in democracy and the belief of unifying individuals of the society to realize it. However, Nietzsche overtly objected to democratic politics, with thinking that love, freedom and democracy are all the results of recognizing the right. Although democratic practices were on the way in the capitalist countries, he asserted that democratic politics possessed no advancement.
On the other hand, these two supreme leaders had ideological differences, which were used during the time, when they were in power. We can say that Lenin was more a political theorist and ideologue, and believed in socialism as the only way to save the working class from bourgeoisie usage, they wanted that there be only one equal class. However, Stalin presented his socialism not only as being pure as Lenin, but as also the only acceptable variant of socialism. His ideology served an ulterior purpose of reinforcing his legitimacy and authority . Furthermore, “A Short Course” (book written by Stalin) was not just purely ideological work but a political justification as its last chapter dealt with the liquidation of his opponents.
A conservative knows that change is the rule of life among societies, but he insists that the past not be forgotten. He is the complete opposite of a liberal such as in he the fact that he can be pessismistic about the possibilities of reform, he chooses stability over change, continuity over experiment, and the past over the future. (Lesson 18) Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt both worked hard to bring the nation out of the great depression. They both instituted many programs and reforms to try and save that nation. Some historians even say that Hoover was the bridge to Roosevelt's new deal policy, however, these two men were very different in their ways of thinking and running the government.
“Nothing to Lose but Their Chains” Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels Marx and Engels outline what the revolution will be like in “Nothing to Lose but Their Chains.” They start with Communists being criticized for desiring to abolish the ability to obtain private property. However, laborers do not acquire property; they create capital, which is controlled by bourgeois and used to exploit them. The capital represents a social power, and by changing it to a common property simply changes the social character, by losing its class character. This idea challenges bourgeois freedom, and is why they disapprove of it. Despite the bourgeois claim, Communism does not keep people from appropriating the products of labor; instead it keeps them from oppressing others in the process.
The new right was radical departure from traditional conservatism because the policies on society are completely different. Traditional conservatives see society as organic, a natural state of civilisation, whereas the new right sees society, as no more than a collection of individuals. Thatcher famously stated ‘there is no such thing as society’. This enables us to argue the point that Thatcherism was radical departure from traditional conservatism. Furthermore, traditional conservatives support free markets but take a pragmatic view of economic management, believing that there are sometimes where state intervention is need.
Bourgeois vs. Proletarians Karl Marx’s purpose for writing the article The Communist Manifesto was to persuade the proletarians, class of modern wage-laborers, to rise against the bourgeois, class of modern Capitalists, and settle a level of equality. He himself grew up in “a middle-class family in Germany” (56). After the publication of this article Marx was forced to “flee Paris and eventually to seek exile in London” (56). However, even though Marx uses good evidence and emotion to convince his stance to be the right move forward, he is unsuccessful in changing the thinking of the proletarians. In the article, Marx attempt to clarify the goals of Communism, as well as underline the theory behind the movement.
A Marxist would argue the same, but because of the underlying limitations (“leveling” by the people or a ruling power i.e. giving and taking of resources directed by an outside party) such high aspirations are not so easily achieved. Nor should items like wealth or power be actively sought for by the Marxist, because those are the evils that create inequality. The similarities between liberalism and Marxism economic views are important. Marx agreed with the liberal economic viewpoint that a free-market is “good” with benefits gained from competition.