Writers Surname

[Writers Name]
[Instructors Name]
[Course]
[Date]
Marx & Rousseau in a Comparative Perspective

Introduction
The German philosopher, Karl Marx is famous because of his theories. These theories are
based on economics, historical materialism and class conflicts and have shaped the world history.
He elaborated and outlined his theories in Communist Manifesto, which Marx wrote in London
with Friedrich Engels in the 1800s. This Manifesto of Communism gave views on the course for
proletariat revolution and to over Communism in order to form a classless society. This essay
presents the comparison and contrast of Marss theories and philosophies with the 18th century
philosopher and intellectual Rousseaus theories. This essay presents that Jacques Jean Rousseau
and Karl Marx share various similar philosophies in few aspects because of which Marx can be
called as the heir of Rousseau, but they do differ in the other philosophies. Jacques Jean
Rousseau is from Geneva Switzerland and was born in 1712. He was called a philosopher of the
Enlightenment Age. His writings and ideas greatly influenced the Socialist theory and French
Revolution.

Comparing Marx's and Rousseau's Theories & Philosophies

Writers Surname

The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that
the state played and its relationship to its citizens participation and access to the political
economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the
concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation
of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was
to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois personal property
and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing
principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and
distributions from the government. They both also shared diverse opinions on issues such as
state, family, government, civil society and religion, But Rousseaus views on freedom, private
property, equality, ideal society and division of labor highly influenced Marxs opinions on these
subjects.

Private Property
Both Marx and Rousseau opposed the communistic view of private property. Marx
believed that private property was the result due to the alienation of labor. Also, he believed in
converse that private property is the means because of which the labor is alienated. Hence Marx
believed private property to be both the effect and the cause of alienated labor. Due to this reason
Karl Marx tried to change the ownership of property. Marx wanted to make capitalist property
publicly owned. Jean Rousseau also negated the establishment of private property and gave the
view that any society which is founded on the basis of private property, legitimized by social
contract, does inevitably deteriorate into despotism. From Rousseau perspective, private property
direct to inequality of society and the other range of social ills.

Writers Surname

Division of Labor
Marx and Rousseaus analysis for division of labor is similar. Both of the philosophers
argued that the need for private property led to division of labor. Due to the division of labor, a
social class gave rise which had the basis on the economic differences. Marxist also analyzed
politics based on this assumption that social class give rise to labor division. Marx believes that
without any economic classes, there will be no requirement for a State, as a state is an instrument
which is controlled by social society and is used by members of a single class which can
suppresses the members of some other class (Megill, pp. 549).

Views on Freedom
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds
with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely
understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers
lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society
but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human
nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely,
Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors
(i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately,
negates freedom.

Total Revolution

Writers Surname

Political philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx dreamt up and developed
unique theories of total revolution. Although similar in their intention to dissolve dividing
institutions such as religion and class structure, as well as their shared reluctance to accept the
rather less hopeful conclusions of government and man that had been drawn by their
predecessors Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the blueprints Rousseau and Marx had printed
were cited to two very different sources. Rousseau approached the problem of oppression from a
political standpoint, focusing on the flawed foundation of liberal individualism that has been
continually adopted by democracies. Marx on the other hand took an unconventional route of
concentrating on economics. By completely eliminating the economic class system, Marx
believed there could be a society of which would transcend the realm of politics. Despite their
different approaches, both theories conclude in universal equality, a real equality between
humans that has never before been observed in any lasting civilization.

Interdependence between Activity & Passivity

Rousseau's idea of the sovereign became the cornerstone in Marxs philosophy.
Rousseau says, "This public person so formed by the union of all other persons . . . is called by
its Members State when passive, sovereign when active.... Those who are associated in it take
collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign
power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State" (Rousseau, pp. 521). The social
contract means that man becomes subject of himself; he is both the law-quiver and the citizen
bound to the law. The sphere of the State is based on "a contract, as we may say, with himself."
Thus freedom and obedience are complementary notions.

Writers Surname

The same mutual relation if found with Marx. Man is both the producer of the conditions of his
reality and the subject of them; he is both the author of his drama and the actor in it. The
revolutionizing Praxis, as stated in the third Thesis on Feuerbach, can conceive and rationally
understand the two aspects of human existence-the activity and the circumstances, as the given
framework of that activity. Man's sovereignty does not mean that his activity moves in a vacuum.
His activity is bound to circumstances but these circumstances are also products of the activity.
The circumstances are both products and shaping factors. Thus we find with Marx the same
duality of activity and passivity as with Rousseau and the same attempt to solve the problem of
human freedom by stressing this duality.
But this shows the very change which took place in this transition from Rousseau to
Marx. Rousseau discovers the duality of activity and passivity in the sphere of the State, while
Marx shifts this duality to the sphere of economics and social existence. The duality for
Rousseau is a formal and constitutional one, while the duality for Marx is a material and
sociological one. The problem of freedom for Rousseau has a political implication, while this
problem for Marx is essentially sociological. Thus the two poles of activity and passivity and
their mutual relations are the common feature both of Rousseau's and Marx's theories, while
there is a difference of the spheres conjoining these poles and their interrelation. With the Marx
the sphere of Society strives to occupy the place of the sphere of State.

Conclusion
We may sum up, therefore, by saying that in Marx's three main points, the
interdependence between activity and passivity, the concept of Praxis, and the harmony between

Writers Surname

the interest of the Proletariat and the universal idea of freedom. In these points we find a
transformation of the concepts of Rousseau's theory. This transformation is always a
transformation from the sphere of constitution and state to the sphere of history and society.
Therefore, we can say according to the extent of the above discussed points, Marx is the heir of
Rousseau. One could conclude that Marx and Rousseaus theories were relatively close in the
role that it plays between citizens and personal property ownership. Between Marx and Rousseau
also lies Hegel's concept of the bourgeois society, regarded as the field of human reality.
Therefore, both Marx and Rousseau shared diverse opinions on issues such as state, family,
government, civil society and religion, But Rousseaus views on freedom, private property,
equality, ideal society and division of labor highly influenced Marxs opinions on these subjects.

Writers Surname

Works Cited

Fiorletta, E. Pursuing the Significance of Living Together. Siegfried Landshut: a portrait of a

German-Jewish intellectual. Bulletin du Centre de recherch Franois Jerusalem, vol.
23 (2012). Print. Retrieved from http://bcrfj.revues.org/6919
Megill, A. Intellectual History and History. Rethinking history, vol. 8, no. (4) (2004). Web. pp.
549-557. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13642520412331312106
Rotenstreich, N. Between Rousseau and Marx. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol.
9 no. (4) (1949). Print. pp. 717-719. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/stable/pdfplus/10.2307/2103302.pdf?
acceptTC=true
Rousseau, J. The Social Contract and Discourses, Everymans Library. Dent, London, Book III,
Chapter XV (1968), Print. pp. 78. Retrieved from http://history-textbooks.info/wpcontent/uploads/pdfs/The%20Social%20Contract%20and%20The%20Discourses
%20Everymans%20Library%20by%20Jean-Jacques%20Rousseau%20-%20Worth
%20The%20Effort.pdf