Comparison between Tocqueville View And Marx and Engel of Communism - Book Report/Review Example

Name Professor’s name Course number Date INTRODUCTION Social equality has been an issue of concern from the ancient society to modern society. Cases in one group posses’ undue advantage over the other are common in the history of man. Consequently many scholars have coined theories in an attempt to address this issue. This paper shall focus on Tocqueville depiction of the new Englanders in the "Democracy in America" and Marx and Engel’s characterization of the bourgeoise in the "communist manifesto”. TOCQUEVILLE DEPICTION OF THE NEW ENGLANDERS Tocqueville argues that social change has been gradual process; and over a period of more than seven hundred years the social and economic situation of men have transformed to a position of equality. The modern world experiences that focus on the beneficial impacts of equality has immensely contributed to the disappearance of aristocracy. Tocqueville presents several reasons that lead to the emergence of equality, they include; granting all men opportunity to join the clergy, increased economic opportunity that emanated from the widespread growth of commerce and trade, the royal trade of nobility titles as a monarchical fundraising tool, and the abolition of primogeniture(Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Gareth Jones 2002, Pp.7-9). Tocqueville explains that there are two ways of thinning the force of authority in a nation. The first way is by weakening the supreme authority in its every principle, through restricting society from acting in its own defense in some circumstances. The second way of reducing the influence of supreme authority is not necessarily by denying society any of its rights, but by distributing the exercise of its privileges to different hands, and as well in multiplying functionaries, to each of whom the level of power required for him to execute his duties and responsibilities is entrusted (Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Gareth Jones 2002, Pp.13-19). On his focus on New England, Tocqueville observes that in New England the independent townships protect their own private interests; consequently the implementation of state laws is entrusted on the municipal magistrates. Occasionally, the state may pass general regulations for the police, but in many cases the townships and town officers conjointly control the minor details of social life, in regard to the necessities of the various localities, and disseminate such enactments as concern the health of the community, and the peace as well as morality of the citizens. Lastly, the municipal magistrates on their own accord (without necessarily propagated powers) intervene on those unforeseen emergencies which may frequently transpire in society. The township authority is bound in a limited manner in communicating their acts to the central government. To note, the central government was not represented in the execution of set the laws; there was no constant communication between the government and officers of the township; to direct their actions, inspect their conduct, or even reproof their faults. There was no point which served as the core to the radii of administration (Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Gareth Jones 2002, Pp.38-42). Perhaps, then, you may be wondering how a uniform plan is conducted by the government, and how townships compliance to this plan is enforced. In his explanation to this query, Tocqueville argues that in the States of New England the legislative authority accommodates more subjects and they penetrate to the very center of administration; the law as well penetrates to nearly all the minute details; in addition the enactment of the law prescribes the standards as well as the methodology of its application, therefore imposing a multitude of rigorously defined obligations in regard to the secondary functionaries of state. As a result the secondary functionaries of the administration conform to the set laws, consequently all branches of society progress with great uniformity (Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Gareth Jones 2002, Pp.59-62). The right to control a civil officer presumes that of cashiering the officer in case he fails to obey the orders or motivating him with a promotion in case he fulfills his responsibilities appropriately. However, magistrates elected ought not to be promoted or cashiered; all elective functions are inalienable till their term expires. In essence, the elected magistrates have nothing to fear or expect from their constituents; since all public offices are filled through ballot there can be no series of official dignities; the double right to command as well as enforce obedience cannot be entrusted on the same person, this is because the powers to issue orders cannot be intertwined with those of inflicting a punishment or giving a reward (Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Gareth Jones 2002, Pp.62-63). Consequently, communities from which government secondary functionaries are elected are obliged to use judicial penalties as a way of administration. This may not be evident at face value; since the official in power are quick to look upon the elective functionaries institutions as one concession, and the elected magistrates’ subjection to the judges of society as another. The courts of law are the only possible intermediate through which the central power as well the administrative bodies; restrict the elected functionary to obey, without breaching the rights of the citizens. The conservatory of judicial power in the political arena therefore ought to be in the exact ratio of the extension of elective offices: if this institution fails to strike a balance, the state risks falling into subjection or anarchy (Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Gareth Jones 2002, Pp.68-69). MARX AND ENGEL’S CHARACTERISATION OF THE BOURGEOISE The Communist Manifesto reveals the social conditions that prevail in a capitalist society; a new ruling class modifies society to suit their own image. The materialistic nature of a capitalist society drives them to rise above the traditional relations as well as revolutionize their own conventional relations. All relationships were transformed into a cash basis; labor turned to a commodity that would be bought or sold at the market rates. The mechanization of labor processes decreased wage income to the lowest levels possible. Even as the capacity to generate goods expanded rapidly with mechanization, the potential of the proletariat towards enjoying the benefits of this expansion was compromised (Tocqueville & Alexis, 2006, Pp.5-13). The bourgeoisie did not only wield economic power, but they also controlled the political realm too. Even the authority bestowed upon state becomes a mere “committee through which common affairs of the bourgeoisie can be managed.” And the entire process occurs at the expense of a new working class; the wage-laborers are exploited and happen to be the victims in the capitalist mode of production where creation of massive wealth is pegged on the poverty of the working class/ proletarians. Consequently, class conflict results in society due to this inequality (Tocqueville & Alexis, 2006, Pp.18-21). The concept of communism emerged as a political expression of the interests of proletarian class.  The proletarians were unhappy with their status; they had been reduced to mere slaves by the bourgeois class, and forced to work amidst a shrinking wage. Class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat gradually increased, as the working class becomes more united through formation of trade unions. Before long, a violent revolution would result and the bourgeois would be overthrown by the proletariat. The revolution would begin in Germany and would spread to global level, resulting to universal peace as well as brotherhood (Tocqueville & Alexis, 2006, Pp.42-48). Marx and Engels major concern was allocation of property. The aim of Communism was therefore to put an end to private ownership property. The big question however, how this goal would be achieved? Marx Engel explains that this would be achieved through introduction of high income taxes and abolition of landed property. In particular, Marx and Engel favor the revolutionary approach towards creating a communist society that provides equal right for all (Tocqueville & Alexis, 2006, Pp.57-60). COMPARISON BETWEEN TOCQUEVILLE VIEW AND MARX AND ENGEL OF COMMUNISM Tocqueville, Marx and Engel hold the view that equality in society would only be achieved through communism. Tocqueville explains social change has been gradual process; and over a period of more than seven hundred years the social and economic situation of men have transformed to a position of equality. Tocqueville presents several reasons that lead to the emergence of equality, they include; granting all men opportunity to join the clergy, increased economic opportunity that emanated from the widespread growth of commerce and trade, the royal trade of nobility titles as a monarchical fundraising tool, and the abolition of primogeniture. Marx and Engel holds the same view; they argue that the materialistic nature of a capitalist society gives bourgeoisie undue advantage over the proletarians. The bourgeoisie did not only wield economic power, but they also controlled the political realm too. To achieve equality that presents equal economic opportunity to all as well grant all men opportunity to join the ruling class Marx and Engel suggest a revolution that will lead to the collapse of the capitalist, replacing it with a communist society that presents equal opportunity to all. However, Tocqueville slightly differs from Marx and Engels view. Marx and Engel recommend a revolutionary approach towards achieving communism. Class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat gradually increased, as the working class becomes more united through formation of trade unions. Before long, a violent revolution would result and the bourgeois would be overthrown by the proletariat.  Tocqueville holds a different approach of achieving communism. He explains that there are two ways of thinning the force of authority in a nation. The first way is by weakening the supreme authority in its every principle, through restricting society from acting in its own defense in some circumstances. The second way of reducing the influence of supreme authority is not necessarily by denying society any of its rights, but by distributing the exercise of its privileges to different hands, and as well as multiplying functionaries to each level of power to execute the duties and responsibilities that it is entrusted with. CONCLUSION Just as illustrated in the discussions in this paper, it has become increasingly important to provide individuals with equal opportunities in the social, economic and political arena. Communism and democracy seems to be the preferred approaches in achieving equality in society. Tocqueville argues that to restrict the ruling class from infringing into the rights of common populace the supreme authority ought to be weakened by distributing the exercise of its privileges to different hands. However in extreme cases Marx and Engel propose a revolutionary approach to topple down the oppressive ruling class. Works cited Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Gareth Jones. The Communist manifesto. London: Penguin Books, 2002. Print. Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America ; Volume 1. Salt Lake City: Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, 2006. Print. Read More