Tocqueville observes that America’s recent birth creates the only natural experiment in world history, allowing ‘political scientists’ like himself to “watch the natural quiet growth of society” . Holding the societal characteristics of Americans and Europeans equal, Tocqueville can isolate the exact causal mechanism – religion – that defined America’s national character since its historical inception. Religion also primed America for a divergent fate from Europe , along a comparatively rapid path toward democracy. Conversely, Marx asserts that we cannot examine change by reasoning forward and rationalising why things had to be. Marx attributes his contemporaries’ failure to recognise the real basis for change to the Hegelian tendency to hark …show more content…
Social change stems from conflicts between the relations and forces of production . However, as an “ideological form” , religion only arises when the ruling classes – those in control of the mode of production – represent their interest as the common interest. Ideas that served these interests also became “the only rational, universally valid ones” . Therefore, while Marx would agree with Tocqueville that religion promotes the incumbent social order, he notes that religion traces its origins and growth from the mode of production . Religion thus serves to solidify the unjust status of the ruling class , rather than pave the way for the stadial progress of history. Instead, the basis of historical progress and change, by Marx’s world-historical view, is the spread of capitalism when “actuated solely by the spirit of gain” to enslave more and more individuals . In India, where the ancient religion is one of “self-torturing asceticism” , the misery inflicted by capitalism is a necessary driver of social change, inspiring the “Hindoos” to “throw off the English yoke” . Similarly, Marx notes that the “medium of England” ended the isolation of “Old China” by tilting the balance of trade in England’s favour and subsequently by winning the Opium War . Marx hoped for the de-legitimation of the Chinese state to lead to its dissolution and subsequently spark revolutions in England and Europe when their economic markets are affected . In both India and China, religion plays no part in advancing social change, and may even have stagnated the stadial progress of history. Instead, Marx attributes the dynamism throughout history to the desire for endless capital accumulation, which will motivate the development of the world market, facilitate
Mikal Fikremariam Prof. Good Group Discussion Summary The primary source is Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, published in 1835 with the purpose of describing American way of life in the 1800s. Tocqueville’s point of view comes from his own aristocratic life in France. The late 1700s and early 1800s were a very turbulent time in France’s history, due to the political and social disturbances caused by the French Revolution. Thus, when he comes to America Tocqueville contrasts the American democracy with the forms of government he familiar with in Europe.
For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church dictated Medieval Europe until the 16th century when Martin Luther condemned its exploitation. As a result, new religous movements known as the Protestant Reformation resisted Catholic philosophy. For instance, in the first chapter, Weber discerns that people in higher social classes were overwhelmingly Protestant. Moreover, that this could be justified by the fact that richer districts tended to convert to Protestantism. Granted, this leads us to wonder why were districts that were economically developed also favorable to revolution during the Reformation.
The sixteenth century America is primarily dominated by the Puritan idealism, but slowly through the year’s things are changing both in the religion and culture. In human nature the constant need for change is captivating, a change towards something new and different than the current. The events of the growing and changing eighteenth century America reflect just that. Ideas of the Enlightenment take deep root in the transformation of ideas about human’s relationship to God and to nature. Therefore, a deeply religious society starts transforming into a more secular culture, but religion still has quite a large influence.
Marx, through his communist manifesto, believed that “modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist”, taking society from one epoch of social stratification and forced labour to Capitalism, under which the inequality between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat grew and became more evident. On the other hand, Durkheim saw industrialisation as a mainly positive occurrence which, along with the division of labour, provided the necessary institutions are in place to maintain it, as it causes society to change and develop and thus “civilization develops because it cannot fail to develop” (Durkheim: 1933: 337). Yet despite differences in their views of the effect, both Marx and Durkheim used the process of industrialisation to explain how society progresses and how society is held together or broken, with Durkheim, in particular, looking at just how much the structure of society changes as the division of labour progresses (Morrison:
In his review of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (Mill, 1835) states that Tocqueville wrote the book not to determine whether democracy shall come, but how to make the best of it when it does” this assessment seems accurate and I will explore it in this essay. In explaining and evaluating why he decided to explore democracy by writing about America I will begin by looking by looking at both Tocqueville’s origins and his life situations and beliefs and then looking at the situation in France at the time Tocqueville made his decision to write Democracy in America and how this influenced him to do so. I will then move onto why he chose America of all the countries in the world to study democracy in throughout the essay and after each section
“I have tried to see not differently but further…”(Tocqueville, 1835) was Alexis de Tocqueville’s conclusion to the introduction of his perennial classic text Democracy in America, and adumbrates to the reader of his modern ideas and observations that were to follow. At the same time, he measures the progress of society through its relationship with equality and liberty. In this paper, I will highlight Tocqueville’s use of equality and liberty to compare the past and the modern, and establish his views on the effects of these concepts with society and each other. Finally, I will put forth that Tocqueville does not favour one concept over the other, but notes the complex relationship between the two and the importance of the co-existence of liberty and equality for a society of people. To begin, let us build the base case to compare with and look the past as defined by Tocqueville, with emphasis on equality and liberty.
In 1831 French sociologist and political theorist Alexis De Tocqueville and a lawyer he befriended named Gustave de Beaumont, spent nine months traveling around America studying its prisons and came back with a full report on the cultural, political and psychological life in America. While Beaumont wrote about the penitentiary system, Tocqueville focused more in the cultural and political life in America. He wrote two essays and published them in a book called Democracy in America. He discussed the possible threats to democracy and the possible dangers of democracy. He believed that religion and equality were the greatest ideas and they were the most advanced in the United States and that's why democracy worked so well in America.
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville provides an analysis and critique of American civic life. During his travels across the country, he discovered how different America was from Europe, particularly France. While the majority of Europe consisted of aristocratic countries with hundreds of years of history, America was a young democratic country. Most notably, he observed that America was growing in equality. The growing equality becomes a presupposition of individualism and isolation, but despite this inevitable growth of equality, individualism and isolation can be minimized.
In the beginning of the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution caused a massive economic spike from small-scale production to large factories and mass production. Capitalism became the prevalent mode of the economy, which put all means of production in the hands of the bourgeoisie, or the upper class. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels argue that capitalism centralizes all the wealth and power in the bourgeoisie, despite the proletariat, or the working class, being the overwhelming majority of the population. The manufacturers would exploit the common proletariat and force them to would work in abysmal conditions and receive low wages, furthering the working class poverty. “The Communist Manifesto” predicts that as a result of the mistreatment
The Industrial Revolution cast its shadow upon European cities and towns. Some enjoyed this shade while others suffered tremendously because of it. Those who enjoyed the luxuries and wealth that the Industrial Revolution provided, the bourgeoisie, depended on the needs of the poor, the proletarians, to increase the size of their monstrous factories and ultimately their wealth and influence. In “The Communist Manifesto” Karl Marx discusses the effects of the Industrial Revolution in further dividing society by creating new social and economic hierarchies. In addition to his observation of the division of labor, Karl Marx believed, that due to the technological shift from craftsmanship to machinery this also caused division of labor and the appreciation of proletarian handmade goods was disregarded.
”The great difference between our western Christian world and the atheistic Communist world is not political, gentlemen, it is moral. For instance, the Marxian idea of confiscating the land and factories and running the entire economy as a single enterprise is momentous. Likewise, Lenin’s invention of the one-party police state as a way to make Marx’s idea work is hardly less
Andre Abi Haidar PSPA 210 INTRODUCTION It is always difficult to write about and discuss Karl Marx, or more importantly the applications of Marx’s theories, due to the fact that he inspired and gave rise to many movements and revolutionaries, not all of which follow his theories to the point. Although Marx tends to be equated with Communism, it might not seem righteous to blame him for whatever shortcomings occurred when his theories were put to the test; Marx passed away well before the revolution in Russia, and he played no role in the emergence of the totalitarian regime at the time. When discussing Marx, however, Vladimir Lenin is one of the biggest highlights when it comes to studying the outcomes of Marx’s theories.
Marx and Engel focused on class conflict as the driving force for their argument. Throughout history, there is a common theme of a caste society lasting for so long until the mistreated lower class attempt to break the cycle; but that system is only replaced with a new
However, Marx addresses this matter and provides some basis in which we can understand the manifestation of such prejudices in society. Marx’s theories regarding of imperialism are of vital importance to our understanding of the issue of immigration today. In his article titled “On Imperialism in India” Marx addresses the matter of imperialism in the context India and quotes “Sir Stamford Raffles, the English Governor of Java” for his description of the effects of the ‘Dutch East India Company’ which states
In Luckmann’s Invisible Religion, he argues that the world has not essentially become secularized, but that religion has become ‘invisible’ and ‘personal’. He does this by proposing that religion has lost the prestige it once had in society and instead has evolved to become personal for the individual. Religion has now adopted a more private form; its once-held institutionalized form has broken down, and it has now been sculpted into a more individualized shape by man. The author’s ideas on religion are remarkably similar to Berger’s as both hold the stance that the importance of religion is falling, although Berger has a broader, social perspective and Luckmann focuses on the value of religion for individuals. Thomas Luckmann advocates that following the Protestant Reformation and industrial capitalism, personal reasoning has trumped religion in importance.