Paine Vs. Marx
The debate over the distribution of property and the unnatural inequality it produces has long troubled political thinkers, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau mused in his Discourse on the Origins of Inequality: It is obviously contrary to the law of nature, however it may be defined for a child to command an old man, for an imbecile to lead a wise man, and for a handful of people to gorge themselves on superfluities while the starving multitude lacks necessities. (Rousseau, p. 869) Thomas Paine wrote in his classic The Rights of Man that he wished to "[restore] justice among families by a distribution of property..." (Paine, p. 177) This sentiment was seemingly echoed by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto when he spoke of the "...the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth..." (Marx, p. 34). However, a more careful review of the texts in context (For these authors cannot be read in a political vacuum, the ramifications of the environment in which their arguments originated must be considered) will reveal to us two arguments that while similar in theory, differ in implementation. Paine's proposal for redistribution of property was seen by some as radical for his time, (a time devoid of any progressive tax scheme of note) but sti
Marx did not value private property rights as Paine did, simply because in the 19th century the political discourse had progressed to the point where what was a goal for further progress in Paine's time, had in Marx's mind become an obstacle to it. While communism represents a possible interpretation of Paine taken to his logical conclusions, it is by no means the only. 207) as he argues that an uneven distribution of property in a governing system leads by default to an uneven distribution of power, similar in some respects to Marx's thinking. Paine was a leading liberal thinker of his day, politically situated on the far left of the polarized world of conservative monarchs and liberal reformers that existed in the late 18th century. In much the same way, Marx stood at the far left of the political spectrum in the 19th century, railing against the same liberals who, ironically, only a century before had represented the political far left. A general swing towards greater freedoms and liberty for all individuals has characterized the context of the post enlightenment era in western civilization. Many scholars have debated the finer points of property and it's equitable distribution. An heritable crown, or an heritable throne, or by what other fanciful name such things may be called, have no other significant explanation than that mankind are heritable property. Seen in this light, one must come to the conclusion that the historical context of the two authors has made their arguments relative, despite a theoretical similarity. To inherit a government, is to inherit the people, as if they were flocks and herds. 329) Locke brings some clarity to the discussion by legitimizing private property, preemptively refuting the Marx ideology and supporting the idea of individual free will to determine one's economic standing. 114) If Paine's argument concerning the legitimacy of political hereditary succession were taken to its logical extreme and applied to the economic realm, then a past generation would have no right to dictate (via the use of inheritances) the economic situation of the present generation. under the regime of property, there is great inequality.
Common topics in this essay:
Paine Marx,
Communist Manifesto,
History Idea,
Marx Paine,
Treatises Government,
Joseph Proudhon,
Origins Inequality,
Property Locke,
Paine's Marx's,
Thomas Paine,
paine marx,
distribution property,
private property,
bourgeois political values,
bourgeois political,
liberal bourgeois,
leading liberal,
context authors,
common paine,
left political spectrum,
19th century,
playing field,
|
Acceptance Essays
