Soci 333 Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx

Dahlia Monte 40002028

Take Home Exam

Question 1B:

        Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx have intertwining ideas when it comes to their views. Kant believed that once one is free he could reach enlightenment and be able to create our own destiny. While Marx argument uses Kant’s theory on enlightenment by stating that peasants will never reach freedom or enlightenment as they are subject to the chains of their job.

Immanuel Kant described enlightenment as “man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one’s intelligence without the guidance of one another” (Kant 132). Kant states that most people are too lazy or coward to reach this stage of enlightenment as it is much easier to be a minority and be told what to do than to think for themselves (Kant 132). This lack of maturity causes those in power to take advantage of the immature population, as one will do anything if you ensue a feeling of anxiety amongst them. For example, a factory worker could threaten a worker by withholding him from his pay if he does not comply by the rules. Peasants are more subjective to these kinds of threats as they need their pay to survive, while those who do not depend on every dollar they make are less threatened by those who rule above them. For example, if a factory owner threatens someone who is part of the bourgeoisie, it would mean nothing to him or her, as they are not under the ruling of the factory owner. In order reach enlightenment, freedom is required (Kant 134).

        According to Marx, peasants will never reach class-consciousness as they live in alienation and are unable to move forward together as a class. In according to Kant’s statements, they will never reach enlightenment, as they can never be free from their rulers. In most work places the labourer is alienated from those who he works for, for example, a person who works in a car manufacturing company does not have much say in the company, they just get paid to assemble a vehicle and that’s it. This gap of power is what causes the feeling of alienation. Alienated labor, is caused by the division of labor as individuals are separated from the production process as a whole and focus solely on their specialized task, leaving them to have little control beyond their task. The owners of the factories and business hold the power within the whole production process, such as: the machinery and materials used to produce the products, the division of tasks, and the rate of production. In essence, the workers mode of subsistence resides in the hands of the factory owner. This constant repetitive works, leads people to forget about their creativity as they are focused solely on survival, and need their job to do so. As workers have little control of what becomes the object of their labor, this depends solely on the capitalist, its causes a disconnection between himself and his creative nature or human identity. In terms of alienated labor, a worker loses his identity in his work as he is now solely considered a means of production instead of a human. As a human’s sole purpose is not only to produce a product in order to survive, but to pursue ones passions, or reach enlightenment. Now, not only is one alienated from himself, but also the rest of humanity. He becomes an asset, to be bought and sold within society. The only time a human is free from this form of alienation, is when he is engaging in his animal functions – eating, drinking, and procreating. In “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, Marx states, “the Bonaparte dynasty represents not the revolutionary, but the conservative peasant” (Marx 110). Meaning, that the peasant is not the type of person to break away from the shackles but the society has given them. But they are those who do what they are told and stick to the status quo. While Kant’s theory of enlightenment, is in fact the act opposite. It corresponds to those who want to end the oppression they’ve been faced with and take the reigns to make their own destiny.

        In conclusion, Kant believes that although we have not reached enlightenment, we are in an age of enlightenment (Kant 138). This sheds some light on Marx arguments, that as time goes on it is possible for the lower classes to reach enlightenment. As in modern societies one can choose not to work for anyone, and chose to be self employed which could in fact make them reach enlightenment.  

   Question 2B:        

Dahl and Weber have opposing ideas when it comes to form of government. Dahl believes that the best form of government is a polyarchy, in which there is a high level of liberalization and inclusiveness. While Weber would counteract Dahl’s arguments by stating that a bureaucracy is the best form of government. In which qualified officials, put rules upon the society that must be followed.

According to Dictionary.com, polyarchy, is “a form of government in which power is vested in three or more persons” (“Polyarchy”). In his text “Does Polyarchy Matter?” R. Dahl explains that in order to achieve a polyarchy form of government there are only three possible paths in order to get there: “Liberalization precedes inclusiveness, Inclusiveness precedes liberalization, and the shortcut method” (Dahl 34). The first path was the most common out of the three (Dahl 36). In this method a closed hegemony, which contains low liberalization and low inclusiveness, creates a circumstance for those of the non-ruling class to contest the power of the ruling class by then creating a competitive oligarchy. Within a competitive oligarchy there is high liberalization and low inclusiveness, meaning that although there is a high level of public contestation but a low rate of public inclusion in the government. Lastly, a competitive oligarchy transforms into a polyarchy, as the levels of inclusiveness rise (Dahl 34). The second possible path is when a closed hegemony government transforms into an inclusive hegemony, meaning they have low liberalization and high inclusiveness. Then the inclusive hegemony transforms into a polyarchy as situations occur that cause the levels of contestation to rise within a society (Dahl 34). Lastly there is the shortcut method, where a closed hegemony unexpectedly transforms into a polyarchy due to a “sudden grant of universal suffrage and rights of public contestation” (Dahl 34). Dahl states that paths two and three are more difficult as they involve many people, which increases the likely hood of more diverse opinions and interests which could cause conflict and take a longer amount of time. Acceptance and mutual security are more likely to form within smaller groups from a similar class who posses the same ideals and values as each another (Dahl 37). Although the first path is the safest, it is the most unlikely to occur out of the three as there aren’t many hegemonies that are not already inclusive ( Dahl 39).