The Views of Marx and Hobbes as to the Basis of Law and Order in Society - Report Example

CONTRAST AND COMPARE THE VIEWS OF MARX AND HOBBES AS TO THE BASIS OF LAW AND ORDER IN SOCIETY By The of the School (University) The City and State where it is located The Date The Views of Marx and Hobbes as To the Basis of Law and Order in Society Law and order in the society are largely concerned with political thought, which is concerned with capitalism and liberalism. Marx and Hobbes are two significant theorists who presented ideas on the basis of law and order. Thomas Hobbes was an English theorist renowned for his advanced thinking in matters pertaining to politics. Hobbes’ ideas were mostly original and are still commonly applicable presently. In his theories of law and order, he explored the idea of humans coexisting in harmony without fear. Karl Marx, the originator of Marxism also presented significant theories, mainly about government, during his existence. Karl Marx and Thomas Hobbes ideologies on law and order were characterized by both similarities and differences. Contrast While Hobbes believed that there was a struggle between individuals, Marx was of the notion that the struggle was between social classes. In Hobbes opinion, humans are basically egotistical and self-centered, which meant that everybody was to survive on their own. This resulted in fear and lack of law and order in the societal context. Owing to this, Hobbes emphasized on the need of a reliable government to govern the masses and promote law and order. On the contrary, Marx’ struggle involved capitalists (business class) the proletariats (working class). In his opinion, evil is about greed, and the capitalist were guided by greediness. In Callinicos’ piece, “The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx”, Marx affirmed that is was better to struggle for the good of the community rather than for personal interests (Callinicos, 2004, 5). The classes hampered any significant progresses in the society. Hobbes’ philosophies are guided by scientific reasoning while Marx’ philosophies are dictated by economic principles. In Marx’ opinion, any action undertaken in the society has some economic underlying. More to that, he believes that any theories developed, such as Hobbes, have economic implications. Owing to this, Marx loathed capitalism because of its economic implications, such as labour exploitation, to the masses. In contrast, Hobbes’ scientific ideologies suggest that there is no honesty or ethics in the society, according to Pietrzyk (2001, 10). The difference between good and bad is based on what one sees as beneficial to themselves. Everybody seeks to maximize their own benefits without much regard of what is positive or what is evil (Pietrzyk, 2001, 9). The same applies to the lawmakers, who, although expected to be impartial, base their decisions on individual gain. While Marx has hope in humanity in terms of coexistence, Hobbes is of the opinion that there are numerous reasons that must be met before any sign of law and order is seen in the societal context. Marx believes people can naturally coexist if they work towards a common interest, although he loathes the capitalist system. According to Labiano (2001, 135), Hobbes seems to have lost hope in humanity. In his judgement, self-centredness reigns any decision-making process and there is no way people will ever cooperate. This is emphasized by his theory of materialism coupled with egoistic tendencies (Labiano, 2001, 135). There exists no morality in the natural, social order without an authoritative directive to govern individual actions based on competition and self-interest. This proves that Marx’ views focussed on the wider society while Hobbes concentrated mostly on individual advancement. Comparison Thomas Hobbes believes that human beings are naturally egocentric and is entitled to his actions and beliefs. Thomas argues that a human being must be subjected to governance in order to prevent disharmony and disorder within a society. In this respect, Thomas means that human beings are subject to determinism concept whereby every person is entitled to do whatever his instinct dictates. This includes owning of property and possession of other forms of properties. The lack of authority in this setting made Thomas brand the phenomenon, “war of all against all” (Greaves, 2009, 56). This status was manifested by lack of societal values and order. This scenario compelled Thomas to call for a government for the people in order to prevent mediocrity. According to Marx, Law is necessary in guiding human beings on the best way to treat each other. He also argued that human beings ought to forgo some basic human rights in order to survive in the natural environment. If human beings are given an opportunity, they are bound to defend themselves from every discomfort. For that reason, adoption of law and order through a governance framework will prevent destruction of the human race. Karl Marx believes that there is a continuous struggle between individuals within a society. The struggle concerns social disparities whereby the capitalist class dominates the working class, the proletariat class. Karl Marx perspective views society as a continuous struggle between parties in conflict. The conflict usually arises from scarcity of resources. The working class and capitalists’ class are always deviant of each other’s operations. The capitalist class is usually wealthy it is always at loggerheads with the working class. This is because of the insufficiency of properties. Additionally, this is attributed to the disparity of endowment of resources between the two groups. The laws, which govern the capitalist class, are disadvantageous to the well-being of the working class. This compels the working class members to be deviant of these laws. Thomas argues that the capitalist class laws are detrimental to the capitalist class. In this respect, the capitalist class members are always deviant to the laws governing the working class members. According to Marx, wealth, power and prestige are related. In this regard Weber argues that the aspect of power can be manifested in dissimilar ways. This can take the form of high social status, economic and political status in society. Wealth is the element, which enhances power. This is because the ownership of assets earns a person power. Prestige is closely related to power given that the perception of a person by the society contributes to the power associated with an individual. Consequently, this enables a person to attain the actualization state in the hierarchy of needs regardless of opposition from rivals. According to Greaves (2009, 71), power comes from the emergence of economic, social and political status of a person. In this view, power is sourced from the social class, which is usually associated with the prestige. Moreover, Thomas’ believed that the economic aspect is crucial in the context of power is similar to Weber’s claims. The slave system Slave is the legal division of society into free citizens and slaves. In this regard, the citizens are presumed to have basic citizenship rights but slaves do not enjoy these rights. According to Hobbes, a human being is just an agent through which unconscious forces of the mind act. They also share on the socio-cultural influence on a person’s character. This was developed in negating Thomas’s position, which underestimated the impact of socio-cultural effect on a person’s character. He is also of the view that external forces influence person’s response to the world. Hobbes claims that human freedom does not need be influenced by Biblical Christian oracles, but on human liberty and free will. He believes in human freedom and God’s sovereignty. His predecessors argue that human freedom and divine sovereignty are guided by Biblical principles. Conversely, Marx advocates for determinism and argues that human behavior is determined by the perfect will of God. In this regard, he establishes a relationship between metaphysics and the study of epistemology. This suggests that there should be a connection between knowledge and reality. According to Kain (2010, 51), Thomas interlinks human behavior to scientific discoveries and knowledge of existence of God. In addition, he argues that the study of being results to dismissal of the study of knowledge given that human behavior must be explained by theoretical knowledge. He employs analytical skills and dexterity in his arguments, which commands more appeal. Conclusion Although both philosophers proposed the idea of a comprehensive government, they had different ideas on how the society was to be involved and the impediments they faced. However, it is agreed upon that their concepts have had a considerable twist of modern day living. Economic forces in the societal context determine the levels of morality in any individual. The economic struggle that exists in the society, in which man competes with man, is what results in the lack of order. List of References Callinicos, A., 2004, The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx. London: Bookmarks Publications Ltd. Greaves, N. M., 2009, Gramscis Marxism: reclaiming a philosophy of history and politics. Leicester: Matador. Labiano, J., 2001, A Reading of Hobbes’ Leviathan with Economists Glasses. International Journal of Social Economics 27, 2. Kain, P. J., 2010, Marx and modern political theory: from Hobbes to contemporary feminism. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield. Pietrzyk, D., 2001, Civil Society – Conceptual History from Hobbes to Marx. Marie Curie Working Papers – No 1 (2001) Read More