Basically, the general will calls upon every one of the general population to think regarding the general and public interest. In this case, everyone must put aside thoughts of what will personally benefit him/her, and consider what is best for the state as a whole. Moreover, the final decision that will be made will be a reflection of the moral choice, with citizens putting aside their personal interests. In contrast, the will of all always considers what individuals think, and the final decision which is made will be based on the majority. Therefore, it is obvious that the will of all is more democratic due to the fact that it takes into consideration what each and every individual has to say and then the one that has more votes at the end is accepted. As a conclusion, there is a great deal of difference between both, since one considers the common interests while the other take into account private interest (Campbell, 2015).
The state of nature is a concept in political and moral philosophy, which is commonly used in religion and social contract theories as well as in international law. In fact, this theory aims to denote the hypothetical conditions of what the human lives might have been like before the civilizations, and civil society came into existence. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, before the civilizations and societies came into existence, people were much happier. Rousseau points out that people were neither good nor bad, but according to him, people were born as a blank slate, and later, the environment and society influenced them (Rousseau, 1778). Therefore, Rousseau believes that in the first place, people did not know each other enough to come into serious conflicts. Hobbes however points out that human had to establish political societies because of the need for finding institutions of self-protection. Unlike Rousseau, Hobbes stresses that in the first place the natural state of man was nasty, brutal and miserable in which everyone was free to act as they wish and this way of living may pose a risk to other people’s existence. Therefore, both Rousseau and Hobbes in their theories appeal to the state of man’s nature as a phase before the political societies come into existence, but their views of the state of nature are quite different (Rousseau, 1778).
In classical and Marxian economic theories, Value in use or use value refers to the utility of consuming a good. According to Karl Marx, each product has a labor-value and use value-value. This means that if the same product is traded as a commodity in markets, it traditionally has an exchange value, which is most often is expressed as “money-value” (KEEN, n.d.). The exchange value, however, refers to one of four most important elements that work together to determine the value of goods or services. For instance, a product or service which is produced for and sold on the market has an exchange value which is not interchangeable to its price. The exchange value of a product represents the quantity of other commodities it will exchange for it if this product is traded (KEEN, n.d.).
The surplus value, on the other hand, consists of the concept whereby, the sales revenue is less than the cost of materials used to produce that good. According to Karl Marx, the surplus value is equal to the new value created by employees more than their labor-cost (Marx, n.d.).
According to Karl Marx, the types of alienation include the alienation of the worker from the work, the alienation of the worker from working, as well as the alienation of the worker from himself. Workers are alienated from the products of their labor because the products do not belong to them. Simmilarly, the reason labor does not satisfy the worker is because it belongs to another. Therefore, workers are alienated from their bodies and human potential because their life-activity if a means to physical existence (Marx, 1844).
Some have argued that Rousseau is a “proto-Marxist.” Does this analysis make sense to you? Why does it make sense or why not? In answering this question, makes sure to define a Marxist is and then use your definition of a Marxist to judge Rousseau.
A Marxist is every person who believes and follows the ideals of Karl Marx, such as the brand of communism articulated by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto and Das Capital. Marxism is an economic system also referred to as communism whereby people share and own everything equitably (KEEN, n.d.). Therefore, in order to be Marxist, one would be in favor of no capital gains and that the government would be in control of products or services and usually there is a committee which is in charge of the quantity of production.
Over time, the issue of inequalities between people has been the focus of the vast majority of researches. A big number of people think that the key role of the government is to negotiate and solve those issues of inequalities between people (Academia.edu, 2015). Therefore, Karl Marx and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are two political theorists whose works significantly address the inequality issues, and they have been the subject of various arguments and comparison.
In the social contract or principles of political Right Jean-Jacques, Rousseau discusses how to establish a government that will mediate inequality issues in the society. Furthermore, he sought to replace the dominating society with an egalitarian government that was by and for the people (Marx, 1844). On the other hand, Karl Marx claims that the capitalism and the class struggle were on top of causes for much of the negative aspects of the Human condition (Academia.edu, 2015).
As a conclusion, it is important to note that Rousseau and Marx were addressing the same problem of inequality between people, although they suggested two different approaches to tackling this issue. Therefore, it makes sense to say that Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Marxist.
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can order our professional work here.