Leadership And Motivation

Re-analyzing Marx and Arendt: Contribution of a "New" Political thought

After having been able to seek the strain between the political thinkers, Marx and Arendt, as representatives of the modern and post-modern period, It is now only essential to re-analyze both political thought and hopefully be able to conceptualize a new form of political thought in relation, in connection or even in critique of the political thought of the mentioned political thinkers of each period.

As a purpose and main objective of this paper, it shall briefly re-analyze, as stated earlier, both thinkers' political thinking and shall provide the a result of the analysis that shall help me conceptualize a new line of political thought that shall either provide an anti-thesis or a synthesis form their ideas. The paper shall attempt to expound on re-analyzing both thinkers while a new form of politial thought shall emerge. After briefly examining both thinkers, the paper shall define the political thought that has been conceptualized and how the newly energing politial thought has related in the present political realm.

The paper shall neither agree or disagree directly on a particular thinker, but rather, the paper shall attempt to root out useful ideas form both thinkers as well as the criticisms. Thus, the paper shall not take sides but thus, will form a new political thought from a collaboration of ideas and criticisms of both political thinkers. However, in the duration of conceptualizing, the paper shall cite ideas that had been used in the previous paper, which would help further clarify the emergence of such political idea or thought. There are still certain flaws in their analysis of the state and society relation, there are still loopholes that shall needed to be tackled upon, and thus this paper shall attempt to fill in the gap

Marx and Arendt on Human existentialism

Since both political thinkers, Marx and Arendt, had focused on the human existence, it has provided us the conception that man indeed has the capacity to think rationally, the perception of man to decide things which can be advantageous for him. Rationality in the sense that one has the capacity to decide for himself . Whether or not such rationality is possessed by man and the use of reason could actually work in a community; a community where man is bounded by certain agreements between the members which is subjected by rules and regualtions implemented by the society.

The emphasis in the difference between the modern and post-modern thinking, to summarize it all, has been centered on the idea of formulating certain structures that govern man's nature that would urge man to understand his own human nature in relation to the society he is living in.

Tracing back form Karl Marx's and Hannah Arendts' theory, we would automatically believe that both thinkers had indeed provide us with clarity on the path to undertstanding human existence. Nevertheless, I have agreed on the idea that history progresses not because there is a "spirit" which guides the society towards the ideal political community, that history progresses because of human effort and existence. However, such existence of human does not end where their essential needs are satisfied by their means of production . There are certain things that we should take note of, like the the tendency of change because as we say, history and society progresses, and automatically change is part of it. Another thing we need to take note of is cultural difference. We must also take into consideration that even man himself changes, and that the ability of man to think rationally can sometimes be irrational to other people, and by these, Marx's concept of consciuosness determing the self is satisfactorily true. These are only some of the ideas that continues to exist in relation to man's existence which we need to consider.

Re-analyzing Marx and Arendt

As we can remember the main focus of Marx's theory has been the belief that people are basically productive, that is in order to survive, people need to work in and with nature. In doing so, they produce the food, clothing, shelter and other necessities that permit them to live., and in a larger aspect, marx's theory claims that people are social therefore, all individuals must work together to produce what they need to survive . While Hannah Arendt's theory on the other hand, emphasizes on the ability of man to speak and act out accoriding to his rationality, but thus, confirming the move towards the equality attainment and the walk away to politics. That the ability of an approach to politics should thus focus on several virtues that a human individual must assess. Arendt re-emphasizes the role of individuals as polititcal actors, purely social in action, as shapers and moulders of the world around them.

As we can see the strain that, on one hand, Marx calls for the unity of all men to unite towards the state society that would result to a classless, capitalist state . While on the other hand, Arendt approves of diversity and in fact promotes it, due to the reason that it is a natural nature of the "human condition". For Arendt it rather promotes a distinct vision of what an active and engaged public politics of dialogue, idea and immanent potential could look like.

As Marx and Arendt clearly defined their political thought that contribute to the analysis of the society that shall suggest a better and provocative society,. Both generalizations conjured were in different periods but both was attempting to promote a society of equal relations, however both thinkers differ in the method and the concepts used as to how such equanimity could be attained.

For Marx, he suggests that all men of a the society should unite, carrying the belief that progress shall result from a classless society, wherein capitalism shall not only benefit those in the upper class . Marx, in fact promotes the capacity of men to work and produce things that will satisfy and answer all their necessities in life. However, I criticize this theory because Marx's theory indeed is not sufficient if we would want to use it in the present society. First, Marx's theory is idealistic and assuming, meaning that his theory tends to situate itself at the extreme end of discourse analysis, rather it imposes even other societies that his theory would fit in all societies, without even considering the background of certain

societies, which in fact might not adopt to his theory . Second, Marx's theory is, as I believe not

...