The Similarities Of Antoine Nicolas De Condorcet And Karl Marx

Improved Essays
Both Antoine Nicolas de Condorcet and Karl Marx develop theories that include reducing or abolishing inequality. In fact, the two do share many similarities in regards to their beliefs in equality. With so many similarities, the two theories will be defined by their differences in comparison to one another. The main difference between Condorcet and Marx is that they do not share the same definition for equality nor the same intentions. Marxism strives for pure equality, in that everyone shares wealth equally; completely abolishing the market. Condorcet essentially wants to maximize the potential of the human race through establishing equality; in that man must earn his/her status and class in this world. Although the intentions of Marxism seem …show more content…
Marxism requires “Centralization of credits in the hands of the state” (387). In other words, Karl Marx believes in the establishment of an equal class in that wealth is shared and balanced among all citizens; essentially diminishing class itself. Condorcet does not stretch that far in discussing equality; he believes each person should work for their own money (193). In addition, Antoine Nicolas de Condorcet believes everyone should start with a clean slate, meaning that there is equal opportunity for each individual to define their own status. Also, due to complete communism, Marxism believes “Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another” (388). Although this perceptions’ intent is to improve human life with equality, it ultimately complicates the economy and life in his era. The demolishment of political power raises countless unresolved issues in society. Nowhere in Condorcet’s program does he remotely intend to create complications, but only to maximize human potential. Another major difference between these two men that define which theory is more likely to be successful is Condorcet’s realization that we cannot completely do away with inequality. In The Progress of the Human Mind Antoine Nicolas de Condorcet mentions: “We therefore need to show that these three sorts of inequality must …show more content…
Condorcet is against anything that restrains the human mind; for that reason, it can be determined that this includes he is completely against organized religion. He believes religion is a direct constraint on the human mind—holding back the progression of mankind. This is the main fixation preventing him from being more favorable and accepted. Since Condorcet is nonreligious majority of the population in his time deny him and all he has to offer. I strongly believe had Condorcet been more favorable his program would gain additional support. The more support will result in further consideration and advancement. In any case, the purpose of Condorcet’s The Progression of the Human Mind is to maximize human potential. With that in mind, I cannot imagine The Progression of the Human Mind succumbing entirely to

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    When Marx critiques Locke's liberalist theories he proves some contradictions that Locke was against. One contradiction was Locke wrote that men were equal and free in the state of nature and that they all had the same natural right to own property. Marx criticizes this principle because after the consent of money inequality emerged among citizens because the more money a man had the more property he can own, labor was no longer essential to own property. Another critique made by Marx was slavery, Locke wrote that a man cannot sell himself to slavery nor can he have someone overpowering him, again after money was invented it started a capitalist society and a class system of the wealthy bourgeoisie and the working-class proletariat. The working class was selling themselves to be slaves to the wealthy for minimum wage, the more hours the proletariats work the less valuable he was as a…

    • 1870 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He believes that communism would be the best system for achieving peace and prosperity among people. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx 9). The existence of different classes is viewed negatively by Marx. He believes that different classes is the reason for tension in a society. Marx mentions that the discovery of America is a big reason for the separation of classes (Marx 9).…

    • 1596 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Much like liberal democracy, Marx believed that individual rights were harmful to the proletariat because they favored the landowning bourgeoisie over the proletariat. When individuals can’t be separated from society and class structure, it gives those with a higher place in the structure more opportunities to improve their rights and the right to fight for their liberties. Equal rights, to Marx and Marxists were never equal, because people, in capitalism weren’t treated equally or given equal protection.…

    • 1095 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Marx believes that conflict is necessary (p. 500). He further explains those in the bottom of the capitalist society should unite to over throw the exploitative system of capitalism in order to achieve the ideal classless society. He states without conflict the bourgeoisie, top of the economic class, will not willingly give up their power. While Hobbes argues life is better with no conflict, therefore, even if the sovereign is unjust life without a sovereign is much worse (p. 17). Hence, Hobbes believes there is no need to use conflict against the sovereign or in general because the result of conflict is much too…

    • 722 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Karl Marx Vs Adam Smith

    • 1879 Words
    • 8 Pages

    One major differences between the two are that they both have extremely opposite views on how an economy should be run. Adam Smith believes in capitalism and free markets where the government has little to no control which in other words is known as, Laissez-Faire. Whereas Karl Marx believes in socialism and trusts that the economy is best run when the government has control on all aspects of an economy and were wealth is shared out equally amongst the public. Another difference between the two theorists are their opinions on how the production should be processed. Adam Smith advocates that division of labour and specialisation is the finest way to produce goods as firms can become extremely efficient and produce numerous more goods in a day as the production is divided into various parts.…

    • 1879 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Marx criticized capitalism during the Industrial Revolution because the social injustice that arose, continuing from the Middle Ages, where the bourgeoisie dominated the economy while the working class suffered tremendously. Believing that capitalism was a flawed system as it led to class conflicts, Marx believed in communism was the ideal system to benefit all individuals equally. By overthrowing the wealthy and seizing their private property, those who work hard in society will surely gain. Carnegie, however, was not a communist. Instead he believed in the idea of “administration of wealth,” that the wealthy individuals had a responsibility to distribute their wealth throughout their lifetime to the community such as donations and charities.…

    • 1789 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Marx is convinced that the labor exploitation spurred by capitalism is beyond ethical salvation. So much so that he advocates for the complete restructuring of society through the abolition of private property, and redistribution of it into the sanction of the state, as outlined in his ten-point communist agenda. Thus, resulting in open access of public property for all. Unfortunately, a restructuring of this size is not unlike revolution, therefore cannot be achieved unless without the support of a marginalized population. Which leads to the safe assumption that this is why Marx attempts to draw together proletariat groups and the communists.…

    • 1076 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Whilst Liberals argue for an attempt to achieve a state that grants us the most freedom, Marxists argue that the state itself is the problem and that humanity will at some point, grow tired of its oppressor, and revolt to defeat the state, leaving the survivors better for it. (Mellor, 2015). Marxists believe that all private property should be confiscated by the state, because it is said that privately held property should really belong to the State. For example, US Liberals say that part of the obligation of being a citizen of The United States of America, is to be willing to let the government use some of your salary in order to create a stable, social structure. Creating a stable social structure includes various actions.…

    • 1102 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    During this time, the elite: the rich, property owners, aristocrats were thought to be superior to the masses. This is exactly, the kind of society that philosopher, Karl Marx detested. Marx supported the lower class: the common people, the servants, the masses and believed that the masses untimely had the potential to rise above the oppressors if they would only realize their true power in numbers and could demolish the need for government and create true equality among all people. Social stratification and capitalism dictate the social norms of the time, but the human spirit often strives to be in control of its own destiny. In Miss Julie, money and social class draw a rigid line that Strindberg’s characters Julie and Jean try to rebut against but yet fail to escape its’ grips on their inner…

    • 1814 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” To him, the idea of private property in the form of bourgeois property is an exploitation of working class, because of its unequal natural. In Marx’s words, “for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work.” Marx believed that the proletariat represents the interest of pure humanity, and their taking over the power from the bourgeoisies and revolting against bourgeois property is the victory of…

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays