Karl Marx: The Man, The Myth, The Legend

Introduction 

Philosophy is one of the most introspective disciplines under the field of social sciences. Scholars of philosophy such as Karl Max have in the course of time been involved in intellectual arguments regarding matters touching the way in which individuals within the society correlate with one another. Philosophers have also attempted to understand the drive and elements of the motivation behind their actions and how such drives and elements of motivation influence the relations between members of the society. This paper purposes to delve into this subject matter from the lenses of Karl Max and his intellectual writings. As such, the paper will look into individual rights and democracy in the forms of property owning and property rights through an explanation of their harmful nature to the proletariat. Additional focus will be directed towards discussing what Karl Max thinks of democracy and rights and the people he believes benefits from them and the reasons for this kind of thought. What Karl Max means by the phrase abolishing private property will equally be discussed. 

Harmful Nature of Property Rights and Property-Owning to The Proletariat According to Karl Max 

It is the belief of Karl Max and the members of the society who subscribe to his school of thought that individual rights and liberal democracy as is often seen in the current proletariat society in the forms of democracy to own property and possess rights over property, is outright wrong and unwelcome. In fact, Karl Max and his followers believe it to be harmful. Their reasons towards this end are numerous and varied. However, the most outstanding are the effect of this kind of democracy and property rights to the social fabric of the proletariat as presented by the family. It is, therefore, the viewpoint of Karl Max that the democracy to own property and possess rights towards owning it, will eventually break the family unit among the proletariats society more than it has already done. While this kind of argument seems far-fetched, the reality on the ground is that the arguments presented within it, are largely true if what has taken place within the proletariat families and continues to take place is anything to go by. As opined by Marx, the democracy to own property and the possession of rights over it creates a situation whereby the younger members of the family are conditioned to believe that life is all about the pursuit and accumulation of wealth as opposed to anything else ( Marx & Engels, 2009) . While this kind of conditioning may seem positive to some extent, it fails to take into consideration the fact that human beings are social animals who are naturally dependent on emotional stability which the pursuit and acquisition of wealth cannot attain in isolation. In the mindset of Marx through his communist manifesto, the present familial relations are disgusting and need to be done away with, a charge of which communism pleads guilty. For example, it has been a common occurrence since the establishment of capitalism in the society to find familial ties broken through daily labor activities by family breadwinners. The younger members of the family have equally not been spared from the yolk of capitalism as the older members of the family condition them through the established education system as the only means to climb the social ladder through the acquisition of property. Inasmuch as this may sound noble, its effects on the family unit remain not only harmful but also despicable. 

Abolition of Private Property and Thoughts On Who Benefits from Property Democracy and Rights 

Reading the thoughts of Karl Max as expressed in his communist manifesto makes clear the contempt and disdain with which communism and its adherents regard private property ownership. It is the belief of this philosophy that private ownership of property need not exist if the common good of humanity is to be sustained and maintained. In this context, Marx argues that private ownership of the property has its form of evil due to the manner in which such property is acquired, the tasks and the conditions, both mental and physical, with which private property is acquired. As such, private property ownership should be abolished due to the toll the members of the working class go through to produce the property, which eventually ends in possession of the bourgeois class, and serves to benefit their individual needs and pleasure. It is important to note here that the kind of private property that Max talks about is the property owned by the top cream of class in the society referred to as the bourgeois. 

While it is tempting to assume that the property under discussion means property in general, Marx introduces a caveat to this general assumption. Marx states that the small and petty property owned by members of the proletariat does not fit here, as it has already been destroyed by the financial prowess of the bourgeois through means such as industrialization. Marx gives an example of the petty craftsman whose labor has lost meaning and value due to the domineering nature in which the members of the bourgeois class have filtrated the markets where such end products of labor can find meaningful financial reward (Wright, 2005). Even in circumstances where private property of such petty nature such as that of the petty craftsman can find a market, the financial outcome will be minimal due to the presence of intermediaries most commonly composed of members of the bourgeois who have formed the habit of benefiting from the labor of others. 

References 

Wright, E. O. (2005).    Approaches to class analysis . Cambridge University Press. 

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2009).    The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist manifesto . Prometheus Books.