The paper "Comparison Between Tocqueville View And Marx And Engel Of Communism" is a wonderful example of a book review on politics. Social equality has been an issue of concern from ancient society to modern society. Cases in one group posses’ undue advantage over the other are common in the history of man. Consequently, many scholars have coined theories in an attempt to address this issue. This paper shall focus on Tocqueville's depiction of the new Englanders in the "Democracy in America" and Marx and Engel’ s characterization of the bourgeoise in the "communist manifesto” . TOCQUEVILLE DEPICTION OF THE NEW ENGLANDERS Tocqueville argues that social change has been a gradual process, and over a period of more than seven hundred years the social and economic situation of men has transformed into a position of equality.
The modern world experiences that focus on the beneficial impacts of equality have immensely contributed to the disappearance of the aristocracy. Tocqueville presents several reasons that lead to the emergence of equality, they include; granting all men opportunity to join the clergy, increased economic opportunity that emanated from the widespread growth of commerce and trade, the royal trade of nobility titles as a monarchical fundraising tool, and the abolition of primogeniture(Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Gareth Jones 2002, Pp. 7-9). Tocqueville explains that there are two ways of thinning the force of authority in a nation.
The first way is by weakening the supreme authority in its every principle, through restricting society from acting in its own defense in some circumstances. The second way of reducing the influence of supreme authority is not necessarily by denying society any of its rights, but by distributing the exercise of its privileges to different hands, and as well in multiplying functionaries, to each of whom the level of power required for him to execute his duties and responsibilities is entrusted (Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Gareth Jones 2002, Pp. 13-19). On his focus on New England, Tocqueville observes that in New England the independent townships protect their own private interests; consequently, the implementation of state laws is entrusted on the municipal magistrates.
Occasionally, the state may pass general regulations for the police, but in many cases, the townships and town officers conjointly control the minor details of social life, in regard to the necessities of the various localities, and disseminate such enactments as concern the health of the community, and the peace as well as the morality of the citizens.
Lastly, the municipal magistrates on their own accord (without necessarily propagated powers) intervene on those unforeseen emergencies which may frequently transpire in society. The township authority is bound in a limited manner in communicating their acts to the central government. To note, the central government was not represented in the execution of set the laws; there was no constant communication between the government and officers of the township; to direct their actions, inspect their conduct, or even reproof their faults.
There was no point that served as the core to the radii of administration (Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Gareth Jones 2002, Pp. 38-42). Perhaps, then, you may be wondering how a uniform plan is conducted by the government, and how townships compliance to this plan is enforced. In his explanation to this query, Tocqueville argues that in the States of New England the legislative authority accommodates more subjects and they penetrate to the very center of administration; the law as well penetrates to nearly all the minute details; in addition, the enactment of the law prescribes the standards as well as the methodology of its application, therefore imposing a multitude of rigorously defined obligations in regard to the secondary functionaries of the state.
As a result, the secondary functionaries of the administration conform to the set laws, consequently all branches of social progress with great uniformity (Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Gareth Jones 2002, Pp. 59-62).