The Role That Processes Which Seemed Inexorable Play in the Political Thought Of Tocqueville and Marx

Introduction

In their analyses of the modern society, Tocqueville and Marx both emphasize on the disintegration of the state social order and that of the social order which has already arisen in its place. Given that both societies recognize collapsing of the hierarchies and several changes which accompany this kind of breakdown, Tocqueville and Marx have the different understanding of the character of these changes and the future for having different possibilities for the society. As a result of viewing the essential nature of the new nation in various ways, Tocqueville and Marx are seen to have reached vast differing conclusions as to the society's direction. Basing their approaches on the fundamental inequality or equality of people in the modern social order, Tocqueville and Marx usually view the likely society's futures according to the terms set for their visions regarding balance observed in the contemporary world. This paper will discuss the role that processes which seemed inexorable (unstoppable and unchangeable) play in the political thought of Tocqueville and Marx.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

According to the vision by Tocqueville, the modern community is different from the previous societies considered as aristocratic through its nature which is fundamentally homogeneous. Provided that the former communities were mainly hierarchical and they contained unique classes, the differences in the modern community were rarely subtle differences in the level of wealth. Unlike the aristocratic societies which preceded it, the modern society is to be made up by increasingly of isolated and equal people.

Furthermore, the modern order of society no longer provides the connection that links the united people in the past. The specific and strong ties of the aristocratic societies usually are replaced with a relationship that is much weaker to humanity as a whole. Given that there are no unique classes which may govern, the two main possibilities for modern society are despotic and democratic social orders (Aron 31). The isolated members of the modern mass societies, those who lack particularistic ties of the aristocratic society, are usually apt to a withdrawal that is into their specific activity, developing the potential for having a despot that govern in place of individuals.

In efforts to counter this particular trend and help draw people into the political environment, the presence of the small-scale participatory of self-governing bodies is essential. Whether it is despotic or democratic, this kind of egalitarian mass societies may not be broken apart as a result of revolution because there exists no fundamental distinction of class and the vast majority has typically a stake which is placed in the social orders as there is no any real motivation to the dramatic change experienced in the system. According to Aron (25), the society stability entails the fact indicating that the society members of a modern society that is regarded as being equal becoming less able to challenge the accepted opinions since they are unable justifying of nonconformity. This is because every individual opinion carries typically equal weight and the idea of the majority in the society is viewed as being the one that is correct.

Marx is seen having a much different understanding about nature as well as the future of the social order that is perceived in modern society. According to Marx's view of modern society, the modern society is viewed as being similar to the communities which existed before it. This view by Marx of contemporary society is fundamentally based on antagonisms that exist between the exploited classes and the ruling classes (Edwards, Foley, and Mario Diani 30). However, the modern society is unique from the social orders in the past societies since it consists of simplified antagonisms of class to include two major categories: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (Eagleton 22). The class relations which are mainly rooted in the economic relationships of the production usually offer the basis required for the needed political superstructure. Given that politics needs to be considered as being superfluous to the real conflicts that are at hands, the political systems will result to reflecting instead of determining of the democracy and social order as it exists in a farce which may become eliminated given that the interests of dominant class have become threatened.

For the class relations to influence any significant change, the class that is oppressed should take power as well as producing of a revolution, and this requires the raising of the class-consciousness of the proletariat. Once the completion of the proletariat's revolution has been completed, class and classes' antagonisms become eliminated thereby creating a social order that entails real self-governance and fundamental equality. Tocqueville and Marx's positions regarding the modern social orders have an important implication on the kind of conclusions which they make.

According to Tocqueville, modern society usually is unique given that the class hierarchies require being dissolved and there exists fundamental equality of the conditions governing the nation. While the poor and the rich are not absent from the modern society, their status is seen as being fluid, and their class is not similar to the solidarity class which existed in an order that is aristocratic. The poor mainly constitute the few in the society, and the law has failed drawing them together through the connection of the hereditary and irremediable wretchedness state. On the other side, the rich are considered powerless and scattered since there exist no race of the poor men, and there exists no race for the rich men hence the rich are seen to be the rise in the society, and they return to thither continually. While Tocqueville recognizes that there exists a possibility for establishing aristocracy of an industry whereby the entrepreneurs become more like the administrators of the vast empires while the workers become more like brutes, he fails to this as having the potential of significantly causing endangering of the equality status found in the modern society.

Tocqueville views the industry's aristocracy as a monstrosity, an exception that is within the general conditions of the social order (Edwards, Foley, and Mario Diani 20). Given that society is found to be not entirely the same in all manners and the differences between individuals exist and they are likely to continue persisting, equality required being regarded as the primary trend. The modern society is not only being dominated by the elite but also by a large population that consists of the middle class. Since the modern social order is mainly based on the small-scale landholding and manufacture, it is fundamentally devoid of the class conflict or solidarity and is instead regarded as a society that comprises of the equals.

While the picture by Tocqueville regarding modern society has its origins from the fundamental picture of equality, The view of the modern society by Marx has its roots that depict the community as being permanently plagued and unequal consisting of several antagonisms. The contemporary society that is considered as being bourgeoisie which has sprouted from the damages caused by feudal society seems to appreciate the presence of class antagonisms. The modern society has instead developed new classes, new forms that demonstrate struggle, new conditions that contribute to oppression in the place of the previous ones (Aron 19). In a similar way to those societies which preceded the modern society, the modern social order is mainly based on the class antagonisms which come from the society's material production which is unique in every society. The production mode remains central to the individual life hence it should not be viewed as only a matter of reproduction of the physical existence of individuals. Instead, it involves a definite activity form of the individuals and definite form that entails expressing of their lives.

The nature about individuals, therefore, relies on the material conditions which determine their production. These production modes usually determine the manner in which people may act and work according to the governing systems. The manner in which the production is mainly organized remains central to the lives structure of the individuals that are involved and through the extension of the social order because the domination relations are mainly determined by the possession of materials which are necessary for a particular form of production. As a result, this kind of social order usually evolves along with the production mode hence the act of changing the way of production is regarded as obsolete and it is customarily replaced via revolution.

Just like the earlier found social orders, the modern society is also embedded in the class antagonisms which involve the antagonisms state that is present in the modern society which has some significant differences acquired from the older societies. According to Eagleton (16), the class stricture of the society is considered less complicated than the one that was in the previous social order which consisted of two major groups instead of having several rank gradations. The entire society represented in the modern type of society is found splitting up into two major hostile camps and two main classes that affect each other thereby intensifying creation of a global society that is monolithic whereby many individuals are regarded as wage laborers that are capitalists for the rising population comprising of tiny elites made up by capitalists.

Marx is seen differing from Tocqueville in the analysis that he presents about politics. Marx views politics in the society as being a mere part of class antagonisms superstructure and hence it is not a way through which individuals in the society may utilize in their efforts of attaining emancipation. All the struggles that are within the state such as the struggle between the aristocracy, monarchy, and democracy are considered as merely illusory forms whereby the real struggles consisting of different classes are usually fought out among each other (Eagleton 18). Politics are only a constituent of other ways through which a given ruling class may exert its domination and given that a specific political form is found as being no longer useful for remedying the rule, it may be easily replaced.

Conclusion

To conclude, by looking at the breakup that exists of feudal social orders and the establishment of the modern society, Tocqueville and Marx are seen coming to various conclusions concerning the nature of the new order and the potential futures which may arise from the new order developed. Whereas Tocqueville views society as being following a given trend towards attaining fundamental equality whereby the industrial capitalism becomes abbreviation, the view of the society by Marx is that the society is composed of two main antagonistic classes that are increasingly becoming polarized as industrial capitalism continues growing more dominant.

Works Cited

Aron, Raymond. Main currents in sociological thought: Montesquieu, Comte, Marx, Tocqueville and the sociologists and the revolution of 1848. Routledge, 2017.

Eagleton, Terry. Marxism and literary criticism. Routledge, 2003.

Edwards, Bob, Michael W. Foley, and Mario Diani, eds. Beyond Tocqueville: Civil society and the social capital debate in comparative perspective. Upne, 2001.