Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Enslavement of Modern Man-Polisci: Marx and Rousseau

Good Essays
1224 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Enslavement of Modern Man-Polisci: Marx and Rousseau
The Enslavement of Modern Man A recurring idea throughout history when dealing with philosophy is the enslavement of modern man. Many philosophers such as Marx and Rousseau believe that the modern man is enslaved, despite ideas that we are all free people, and that we accept the fact that we are enslaved. In order to properly take this thought head on, we must concentrate on property and the division of labor. Without property, there would be no division of labor, thus the modern man would not be enslaved, and we would all truly be free. One may ask, “How are we enslaved if the Constitution declares us free?” Karl Marx and Jean-Jacques Rousseau would answer this question by explaining that property creates different classes, which ultimately puts people against one another. In this case, the human race is no longer united; it becomes separated into the free men and the enslaved men. The enslaved men or proletariat class, of course, would be the men who are not free. Although they may have a freedom by law, which must be obeyed, they are not free because the other men, the bourgeois class, enslave them. Marx best explains how we become enslaved in his work, Estranged Labour. “The whole of society must fall apart into two classes---the property-owners and the property-less workers (Estranged, p. 70). Marx explains that the workers, or property-less become a slave of his object, or his work, because that is all he has. The labor that is done by the property-less becomes enslaving because it benefits the property-owners in marvelous ways, but does exactly the opposite for the workers (Estranged, p. 73).
First, the fact that labour is external to the worker, it does not belong to his essential being; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He is at home when he is not working, and when he is working he is not at home. His labour is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labour. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. (Estranged, p. 74)
This quote best explains the idea of how the modern man is enslaved in the first place. Because of property, comes division of classes. The men that own property do not need to work, the men who do not own property need to work in order to make up for their missing wealth. These men may not want to work, but feel it necessary to work to try to become somewhat equal to the property-owning bourgeoisie. These men work for money and possible wealth, not for love of what they do. “What can be the chains of dependence among men who possess nothing (Rousseau, p. 58)?” Marx and Rousseau might say that modern man has become this way because modern man, early in life, came out of a natural, savage state and wish to dominate one another. “Each one began to look at the others and want to be looked at himself, and public esteem had a value. The one who sang or danced the best, the handsomest, the strongest, the most adroit or the most eloquent became the most highly regarded. And this was the first step toward inequality… (Rousseau, p. 64).” We all wanted to be the best at something, so the first man to declare he owns land, or private property (which before belonged to all men), is now better than all other men whom did not own land. Rousseau writes, “the first person who, having enclosed a plot of land…was the true founder of civil society,” simply meaning, the originator of the idea to create private property, is the creator of the enslavement of modern man, because that is what civil society is today. This is essentially where class division was born. Once this primary declaration of private property occurred, this is when property-less must work to try to achieve the same level of success, or publically esteemed, just as the property-owners. Marx’s ideas in Estranged Labour tie right in with Rousseau’s ideas when Marx writes, “If his own activity is to him an unfree activity, then he is treating it as activity performed in the service, under the dominion, the coercion and the yoke of another man (p. 78).” This is stating that man is not attempting to become equal with one another because he truly wants to, he is only doing it because he feels as if he has to keep up with the ones who are self-proclaimed to be better. Modern man does not wish to be left at the feet of the “better” man, yet in giving in an admitting there is a better man, he is already a slave to the bourgeoisie. It seems hard to believe that if society knows that the modern man is enslaved, why do we accept this fate and become complicit in our own enslavement? Marx declares, “In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality (C. Manifesto, p. 10), meaning that the modern man has no independence because we are all stuck in this cycle of enslavement, based on need. Since the first man that declared private property, as Rousseau put it, we have been stuck in a system of trying to dominate and gain power, or advantage over one another. As modern man, there is a need to socialize and a need to dominate. We are constantly thinking of how we can deceive another man in order to fulfill this need to be better than one another. We are ultimately enslaved by this necessity to dominate, which coerces the property-less to work to gain dominance. By working, the modern man:
Changes the forms of materials furnished by nature, in such ways as to make them useful to him…this division of product into a useful thing and a value becomes practically important, only when exchange has acquired such an extension that useful articles are produced for the purpose of being exchanged (Fetishism, p. 321-322).
This is where we get stuck with not only a need to gain dominance, but now we have a deeper dependence on one another. We wish to gain a certain power over another man, yet we are stuck enslaved to them because we rely on them for exchange. “Living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor (C. Manifesto, p. 10).” Modern man works only to increase his wealth, not because he wants to work and loves it, but because it is the only way to begin in the process of attempting to dominate. If modern man works to create something, someone else will then become dependent on him for that item, which makes him dominant. He is still then, dominated by those that supply his materials and needs. The cycle continues as such, making everyone, except the bourgeois, the ones at the very top, enslaved with no way out.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Locke links the catalytic relationship between labor and property by citing a laborer as taking property “…out of the hands of nature…thereby appropriated it to himself.” (p. 20, $29) Thus, if anything requires labor, whatever the labor applies to, becomes the property of the person by association. The theory comments on Locke’s era of feudalism and refuting the lord-serf relationship. By this definition of private property, the land and the products produced belonging to the lords would then be the private property of each serf because the serfs are the faction laboring on the…

    • 456 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    During the Enlightenment, many western political and economic philosophers attempted to describe the transition of mankind towards modernity. Specifically, Edmund Burke (1729-1797) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) were both heavily influenced by the American Revolution (1775-1783) and French Revolution (1789-1799), which compelled each to write about the existence of inequalities in society and transformations that aim to address these inequalities. Burke and Rousseau differed in their interpretations of why inequalities exist within society and had diverging views on radical transformation within society. These differences stem from their conflicting ideology pertaining to the role of the government, private property, liberty and notions of sovereignty. It is imperative to discuss each philosopher’s competing ideological framework of inequality and analyze each philosopher’s assessment regarding the desirability of radical transformation.…

    • 1448 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    His theories severely degrade philosophies regarding divine right and emphasize natural as well as manual labor. In Émile, Rousseau makes this quite clear by stating that of all the trades "which can furnish substance to man, that which most nearly approaches to the state nature is manual labor...do not work from necessity, work for glory. Lower yourself to the splendor of the artisan in order to be above your own" (Rousseau 232-233). Although his beliefs regarding the government 's role in society could be considered by some as oppressive or totalitarian, Rousseau 's writings played an incredibly important role in Europe 's individual rights…

    • 843 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Can freedom ever be truly found or is it just a tool used to give people something to strive for. This is the question presented by Rousseau and is the base for his explanation in regards to freedom; the people of America and the world seek acceptance and pleasure. We allow ourselves to become slaves to these ideals in our attempts to attain our definition of both. A person’s…

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    What is amour-propre? What role does it play, according to Rousseau, in the Discourse on Inequality?…

    • 2047 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Rousseau’s work “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” strives to answer a number of questions that current society faces, such as what is the origin of government and what is its purpose. Different from Locke’s and Hobbes’ approach to the origin of government, Rousseau strives to answer this by understanding the role of inequality in the creation of government. In order to further understand this, the following points and themes mentioned in “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” will be introduced. First, Rousseau’s definition of the state of nature and how it differentiates from Locke’s and Hobbes’ view. Second, the introduction of inequality in a society. Third, the furthering of inequality in a society and its relation with the origin…

    • 122 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The reading for this week addresses Locke’s understanding of the relationship between the poor and the capable citizens in society. He stated explicitly in his second treatise on government, the importance of work and labor in order to assess a person’s worth. Locke believes that man is not meant to be idle and that the purpose of existence is to live in the image of God and work towards a life of moral bounds and labor upon the earth making it more beneficial to all those who enjoy its benefits. During the century that Locke is writing, about 50-70% of the population is extremely poor. There seemed to be no freedoms unless the institution of waged labor came into question. Waged labor during this time was not much better than being a slave and in many ways is just an extension of slavery.…

    • 624 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Rousseau vs. Marx

    • 2256 Words
    • 10 Pages

    In his "Discourse on the Origins of Inequality," Rousseau argues that the arts and sciences "which first civilized men, ruined humanity." The philosopher challenges Thomas Hobbes' theory of the wicked nature of man, arguing that it is not man's nature but society and the pleasantries of civilization that have weakened and demonized mankind: "It appears, at first view, that men in a state of nature, having no moral relations or determinate obligations to one another, could not be either good or bad, virtuous or vicious" (279). The nature of man, therefore, is naturally untainted and based on compassion- a basic, innate virtue. Man's nature is neither good nor evil, neither wracked with steadfast competition nor satiated of philanthropy. Man simply uses instinct, not intellect and reason, to survive. Compassion, Roussea argues, is evident as the only characteristic of man that civilization has yet to erase. For instance, both man and animal cringe at the sight of murder or the deceased of one of its kind. Through the recognition of others in society, falsification of differences, and needs of possession, Rousseau concludes that "the state of nature, being that in which the care for our own preservation is the least prejudicial to that of others, was consequently the best calculated to promote peace, and the most suitable for mankind" (280).…

    • 2256 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Marx Vs John Locke Essay

    • 1321 Words
    • 6 Pages

    John Locke said that it is very important for society as well as a place for government to have a grasp and control on its people, by being able to us land and private property as limits toward various extents. For Marx, he was on the other hand very against the ownership of property. He was contrastingly hoping for the abolition of private property as one of his main ideas for a successful society. Also in The Communist Manifesto, I learned that he didn’t only mean it in terms of property like the sidewalk we stand on or the garage you or your car in, but the rights to production. By being able to own and produce a product or good for oneself seemed very over the top for Karl and he thought that it would ruin society all in all. In Karl Marx’s terms, he thought that this is a great fault of society, how there had to be someone working and someone in charge of 30 other individuals in the sense of a production line. He firmly believes that the fact and allowance of an individual to have access to private property were the reason for all problems as it allowed for growth and…

    • 1321 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Locke argues that God provided all humans with land in common and thus initially in its natural state land is ownerless. Humans, following basic instincts of survival, are faced with an abundance of resources of which they are able to use in order to satisfy their needs. Similarly, Rousseau argues that basic desires drive men to serve for only their own needs and to compete for all else they need. For Locke, the only ownership that is present from the beginning, and which all humans possess is the ownership of their body All humans own themselves as well as the labour that their two hands are able to supply. Rousseau disagrees in the fact that men are not born with the right to property but in fact it only comes about through the development of man.…

    • 1110 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    President Obama called widening income inequality the “defining challenge of our time”. The political firestorm created from perceived economic inequality is an increasingly vexing problem in the United States. The belief, that the richest citizens use their power and privilege by abusing the most vulnerable with impunity, as think tank philosophers feed mob rule passions for equality through “divide and conquer” Machiavellianism. Consequently, allowing the government and wealthy individuals to subvert the republican government by maneuvering regulations narrowly towards oligarchic or autocratic directions. Ultimately, delivering economic wealth to corporate or even foreign powers. What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? Derek Thompson’s Barack Obama, Inequality Fighter feeds the Baconian type notion that income inequality is purely factual while dismissing the economic freedom principle of voluntary action over regulatory coercion.…

    • 399 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In a Discourse of Inequality, Rousseau tries to understand where inequality falls in nature. To examine such, one must first comprehend the nature within men that is the true essence of man. Rousseau examines man at its purest form, to differentiate between the natural inequalities established by nature, and the moral inequalities established by mankind itself. Rousseau argues that mankind’s downfall began with the departure out of man’s natural state of nature, but it is freedom and time together that will open doors to mankind’s misfortune and lead man’s perfectibility to misery.…

    • 618 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Rousseau and individualism

    • 1947 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Ever since the fall of feudal societies, all men have shared an obsession with individualism. Even in the days of fierce nationalism during WWI, the idea was still seen as the individual’s endorsement of the state rather than the state’s imposition of an idea. This obsession with individualism reaches not only politics, but art, culture, and even religion (the protestant reform); these ideas shape our modern world and are a driving force in the way each of us think in our daily lives. During the time of Rousseau these ideas we just taking off, with thinkers like Hobbes and Locke were carrying the idea forward. However, what Rousseau provided in his works, in particular piece The Social Contract challenged those notions of individualism, highlighting holes in reasoning as well as exposing the inherent flaws that lie in a hyper-individualist society. Rousseau sought to counter previous notions of not only primitive man, but of the way man should be ruled in a society. Of his theories, which are many, there exists one idea above them all and serves as the cornerstone upon which Rousseau frames most of this later works: The General Will. These ideas of common good and “general will” stand alone, but also serve as a foundation for thinkers like Marx and it is in many ways to communism what Locke is to capitalism. It is important to note that Rousseau does not reject the notion of the individual, in fact, Rousseau endorses the notion that individuals control the real power in a society; the difference arises in the way these thinkers deal with the individual vis-à-vis The State. This fissure on ideas finds its roots in how Locke and Rousseau differ in their imaginations of primitive man and the state of nature. For Locke, a man’s primary value is freedom. A freedom then cannot be infringed upon, lest the individual return to the state of nature to seek his full level of freedom – man in the state of nature is essentially the same man under a state,…

    • 1947 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Retype Essay

    • 1088 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Many slaves experienced or faced exploitation from their owners regarding various forms of inequalities. There was no equal distribution of wealth among slaves in the 18th century Caribbean. During the 18th century, slaves mainly worked in the fields and grew crops such sugar cane. The slaves were exploited by their owners as the income received was not equally distributed among the enslaved. As a result, the enslaved were seen a mean of increasing wealth among slave owners which is relative to Karl Marx’s capitalism theory. Due to this, the slave owners become wealthier and the enslaved remain poor and impoverished. In the 18th century, Caribbean slaves worked in fields for long hours and did not receive any wage and as a result there was a prominence in income inequality. Relative to the unequal distribution of wealth aspect of slavery, the enslaved had no means of receiving income though they worked very hard in the fields and as house slaves. Income inequality occurs on the basis of fairness. The slave owners showed unfairness towards the enslaved as they were deprived of any sort of salary for the…

    • 1088 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Countless generations of men have lived in unfree societies, but many men dreamed of freedom and hoped for the day when their children would be free. Gradually the West developed a philosophy of freedom, a rationale for individual immunity against governmental power. This intellectual movement gathered strength in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; Liberalism, as it was called, became the major social force in country after country. As the twentieth century dawned it appeared that the ideals of the free society were safely installed in the thinking of the West and progressively realized in practice in the major countries. But then something happened. In country after country, the highway of Liberalism turned into the road to serfdom.…

    • 638 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays