Rerum Novarum and the Communist Manifesto address the antagonistic relationship between the upper and lower classes. Pope Leo’s adamant opposition to the communist approach creates an aura of dissimilarity, which deters from the otherwise obvious parallelistic nature of the two documents. Examination beyond Leo’s criticism allows homogeneity to be observed in both argument structure and objective. This essay will validate the parallelism of the documents according to the most literal and mathematically based definition, which applies to the relation of two lines, to be represented by the distinct approaches. A defining feature of parallelism is the absence of intersection. Conflicting fundamental beliefs regarding human nature direct each writer
…show more content…
In Article Six, Leo compares the upper class’s exploitation of the lower class to slavery. Marx also recognizes this abuse and credits the prominence of class conflict to the modern Bourgeois structure which has “simplified class antagonisms” (CM, 3) so that the majority belong to either the property-owning Bourgeoisie or the laboring Proletariat, with conflict arising from misappropriation of power. In the words of Marx, the Bourgeois society is like “a sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells” (CM, 7). The drastic increase in the industry’s production ability generated an excess of power which was immediately seized and has since been used to expand the rift between those with power and those without. The power of the Bourgeoisie has surpassed that of the government which leads Marx to the conclusion that its “existence is no longer compatible with society” (CM, 12). Communism suggests the abolition of private property to counteract the disproportion of power as well as class distinction, whereas the Pope presents restrictions to alleviate the tension between the …show more content…
Marx comments on the current condition of familial association, explaining that it has become “a mere money relation” (CM, 5). Marx is addressing the Bourgeois here, under the assertion that family relation has disappeared from Proletarian life. He concludes that the so called Bourgeois family “will vanish as a matter of course when its complement [the Proletariat] vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital” (CM, 17), so that through communism, financial motivation will become obsolete, leaving society to function as a family free of exploitation and subjection. Pope Leo describes the micro society of the household, denoting it as “a true [society] … older than any polity” (RN, 5). Following his tendency to allocate responsibility, Leo says the household must have “certain rights and duties of its own independent of the State” (RN, 5). Leo speaks to Socialism in this regard saying, “inasmuch as the Socialists, therefore, disregard care by parents and in its place introduce care by the State, they act against natural justice and dissolve the structure of the home” (RN, 6). Again, irreconcilable ideological differences separate the approaches. In both documents, emphasis is placed on the significance of the family, however, conflicting definitions of the proper structure and function of the family within society expose yet another point of divergence for the two
In Article Six, Leo compares the upper class’s exploitation of the lower class to slavery. Marx also recognizes this abuse and credits the prominence of class conflict to the modern Bourgeois structure which has “simplified class antagonisms” (CM, 3) so that the majority belong to either the property-owning Bourgeoisie or the laboring Proletariat, with conflict arising from misappropriation of power. In the words of Marx, the Bourgeois society is like “a sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells” (CM, 7). The drastic increase in the industry’s production ability generated an excess of power which was immediately seized and has since been used to expand the rift between those with power and those without. The power of the Bourgeoisie has surpassed that of the government which leads Marx to the conclusion that its “existence is no longer compatible with society” (CM, 12). Communism suggests the abolition of private property to counteract the disproportion of power as well as class distinction, whereas the Pope presents restrictions to alleviate the tension between the …show more content…
Marx comments on the current condition of familial association, explaining that it has become “a mere money relation” (CM, 5). Marx is addressing the Bourgeois here, under the assertion that family relation has disappeared from Proletarian life. He concludes that the so called Bourgeois family “will vanish as a matter of course when its complement [the Proletariat] vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital” (CM, 17), so that through communism, financial motivation will become obsolete, leaving society to function as a family free of exploitation and subjection. Pope Leo describes the micro society of the household, denoting it as “a true [society] … older than any polity” (RN, 5). Following his tendency to allocate responsibility, Leo says the household must have “certain rights and duties of its own independent of the State” (RN, 5). Leo speaks to Socialism in this regard saying, “inasmuch as the Socialists, therefore, disregard care by parents and in its place introduce care by the State, they act against natural justice and dissolve the structure of the home” (RN, 6). Again, irreconcilable ideological differences separate the approaches. In both documents, emphasis is placed on the significance of the family, however, conflicting definitions of the proper structure and function of the family within society expose yet another point of divergence for the two