Tocqueville vs. Marx

The liberal vs. the socialist on the fundamental nature of society and its future

Xhensila Gaba

Instructor: Ermal Hasimja, PhD

Class: Classics of Political thought

Fall 2012

~ 1 ~

Introduction

Alex de Tocqueville and Karl Marx are two controversial, yet influential figures, whose

ideas are of worth to study not only because of them being enshrined into thick chapters of well-

known philosophical, economic or political books, but also because of them being so prominent

and relevant in explaining the emerging trend in the new social order which we still experience

today. Their visions, despite the surrounding polemics, have been farfetched given the times they

lived in, and that is why they have managed to survive in time and still be able to grab the

attention of scholars and policy-makers. Why is of interest in comparing Tocqueville with Marx?

How can this two contrasting and divergent point of views be comparable? The common

denominator for allowing comparison is the context in which they both lived in and got inspired.

They both experienced the decline of the old aristocratic regime in Europe during 1800s and the

emergence of a new order embracing modernization. The time of the aristocracy and feudal

system had come to an end. Industrialization, rapid urbanization imposed a transformation of the

society both in political and economic terms. The old regime was hierarchical, exploitative and

rigid. It was hierarchical because aristocracy and landholders were a privileged class in the

society, whereas the other classes lacked their privileges in terms of wealth and power. It was

exploitative because poor people were forced to work for the aristocracy and not themselves.

They were paid up to subsistence level and the rest of gains were flowing into the pockets of the

landholders, thus feeding the feudalist system. Last, it was rigid, because social mobility was an

impossible option. A person could only be born an aristocrat, not made. Moreover, if a person

was born poor, he would die poor.

Both Tocqueville and Marx agree that the old regime could not sustain itself anymore and

change was inevitable. Some of the reasons that brought change are: (1) the aristocracy was

~ 2 ~

losing its power and influence by detaching from the daily problems of the citizens and engaging

more into inward-focused aristocratic events. The Industrial revolution presented new patterns of

social and political relations based on the modernization of production. Moreover, massive

production of goods in low costs made possible the creation of economic surpluses; hence the

enlargement of the “pie” invoked the developing of the middle class, which was asking for

political representation as well. The new ideas of the French Revolution and Enlightenment

redefined the concepts of justice, equality and freedom. These were the times that the French

philosopher and the German genius were living through; all an inspiring context for brilliant

minds to activate.

Questions and purpose of the essay

The purpose of this essay is to highlight the different perspectives that Tocqueville and

Marx had on the configuration and fundamental nature of the new social order. Moreover, what

accounts for these differences? How comes that, even though both were experiencing the same

historical events, they present contradicting and contrasting points of view? What conclusions

did they reach regarding the future of the world? Which of them has best predicted the future?

Configuration of the new world by the liberal and the socialist: Divergences in equality, freedom and revolution

Tocqueville was a French philosopher coming from the aristocracy class whose family

suffered from the decline of the regime. He went to America where he got fascinated by the way

in which the whole system was organized. He analyzed it from the view of an “outsider” and

compared to the events in Europe, particularly in France. The book “Democracy in America”, his

masterpiece, explains that in America there was no concept of class. People were isolated

individuals in pursue of their self-achievements. The whole system was based on the principle

“equality of conditions”, which meant same accessibility to opportunities for each individual,

~ 3 ~

regardless of their gender, race, or class. Everyone was equal to enter the system and benefit

from it. Tocqueville saw that there was no distinguishable “class” of rich or poor people (actually

he never defines the concept class, for the sole reason that there was no class in America or at

least not at the same meaning as that in Europe). The social mobility was high. Everyone had the

chance to pass from poor to middle class and then to the rich class. The status in the society was

not born, but made. How then can be explained the inequalities in the America if everyone was

starting from the same equal conditions? Tocqueville argued that inequalities will exist because

people approach freedom in different ways. Some are risk-lovers and others risk-averse. Hence,

the one that pursues more risk and makes better assessment of the opportunity provided, get

richer and the other less, which means inequalities emerge. However, these inequalities are not

fixed and unchanged, but rather fluid and constantly changing. The equality of conditions is what

preserved the social stability. People have no incentives to oppose and rise against the system,

because their freedom is guaranteed, even though the existence of inequalities would call for

changes, but yet not a revolution. Why the revolution was an excluded option in an egalitarian

society? First, there were no fundamental class distinctions. Second, the majority of people had

vested interests in the society, such as property, and thus they avoided threatening their interests.

Third, people were equality weighted in their opinions, thus the majority was always correct

(=the sum of equally weighted opinions), and anti-conformity was not justifiable or accepted.

Below, I will argue how Tocqueville feared the tyranny of the majority, as a consequence of the

passion people had for equality, and how it would put a burden on freedom. Again, Tocqueville

was an “outsider” in America; this helped him to see beyond the “visible”: in America, all were

enthusiastic for their social order and their values of freedom and equality, however, threats are

present and democracy id fragile, as Tocqueville argues.

~ 4 ~

On the other hand, the new social order looked completely different to the German

socialist Karl Marx. He said that the new world is hierarchical and exploitative in nature the

same as the old system, for the mere exception that the model is simplified in two antagonistic

classes: the bourgeoisie/capitalists and the proletariat/labors. This new classes were to be defined

in economic terms because they emerged as a result of new modes of production. The capitalists

were the ones owning the means of production and they were constantly engaged in

accumulating capital. The labors had nothing but their labor power, which was a commodity that

the capitalist could buy in the labor market. However, the labors were the ones who were

working with the machines (capital) and they were the ones directly engaged into the production

process. Thus the real value, according to Marx, belonged to the labor, (not to the machines) and

it was stored in the goods produced. The gains or profit from selling those goods were going into

the capitalists’ pockets, instead of to the “real producers”, the labor. Thus Marx explained this

relationship as unjust and unequal because the workers were being exploited by the capitalists

and paid to a minimum wage, below their marginal productivity. Hence, the labor class had to

revolt and start a revolution against the capitalists, because they were not equal in conditions and

opportunities, as Tocqueville witnessed in America. The revolution, made possible from a raise

of class consciousness, would lead to a classless and equal society.

Tocqueville and the idea of participatory democracy

The new social order was composed of isolated, individualistic people who were

constantly struggling to upgrade their status in society by maximizing benefits from

opportunities provided in the system. Hence, the connections between individuals are weaker and

there is no sense of belonging to a community. The central unit of society is the individual, not

the class. However, given this isolation and individualism, two models of regime might emerge:

~ 5 ~

democracy or despotism. And Tocqueville argues that the latter has the higher possibility to

occur if not deterred on time. For example, in France, right after the French Revolution,

Napoleon took over and his rule was more despotic than any other previous monarch. The

individual being a self-interested rational and atomistic actor in pursuit of private gain becomes a

safeguard for despotism, because he is completely detached from the policy-making and

governance. As Tocqueville argues, “..despotism in which exists an equality of servitude and

apathy towards a powerful stranger called the government”.

How to avoid this? The best away was through giving people incentives to get involved

in the policy-making, for example, through small-scale participatory self-governing bodies. This

would avoid the alienation of government from people and would counterbalance the central

power. The interest groups are one feature of small scale governing bodies; they put pressure by

adapting the law in convergence to their interests. Tocqueville was among the first to coin the

term the ‘tyranny of the majority”. Since people were equally weighted, the majority was always

right and no one could contradict it. However, the majority not always presented the best option

or best solution to a problem, because that would depend on the knowledge and the experience

that “the majority” had regarding a certain issue. What if the majority was decided arbitrarily on

something, or even worse blind decision given the ignorance on that issue? That implies that in

an egalitarian society, individual intellectual achievements are not given any extra weight in the

policy-making. One way to prevent the tyranny of the majority is through establishing a

proportional voting system, in which elites are weighted slightly more.

For Marx, democracy was just a façade, an appearance that would be eliminated as soon

as the interests of the dominant class were threatened. Democracy was a political system that

reflected the economic inequalities, thus it was not fair and just system. Marx was an advocate of

~ 6 ~

social democracy as a political system in the hands of the proletariat, for ensuring equality. The

revolution would create a self-governed system by an equal society.

Concluding remarks: Why Tocqueville is still relevant today and why Marx failed to predict the future of the society?

Tocqueville remains still relevant and prominent with his farfetched ideas. America is a

place of equal opportunities, as he described it, composed of individualistic actors in pursue of a

better status in the society. Class has no meaning in America. Tocqueville argued that building a

free and equal society depends heavily on the context that this “formula” will be applied to.

What worked in America, failed in France. Freedom and individualistic behaviors would yield

social upheavals in Europe, because of the legacy that the feudal system left. Freedom meant

risks, and risks meant inequalities. The word inequality scared the Europeans, because they had

suffered from it in the past. Thus people were passionate about equality up to the point to

sacrifice part of their freedom. That explains why the European countries tend toward socialist

ideas rather than free-market and capitalist system. Equality again prevails over freedom. Some

argue that it works in America because of its exceptionalism; America was a new society

composed of emigrants, all equal and starting from zero. In Europe, class had a painful legacy,

difficult to be eroded.

Marx, despite his genius, failed to predict the future of the society. He said that capitalism

was self-destructive, but time has shown that communism was self-destructive. First, Marx mis-

framed the capitalist realities and its democratic spill-over effects. And of course, he is not to

blame, because he experienced the brutal form of capitalism, the social Darwinian times of

Rockefeller and his friends. However, due to the ability of liberal democratic systems to improve

themselves in time, workers are not anymore unprotected and exploited, as Marx described them.

Labor unions and syndicates for example, show that labors now have a higher bargaining power

~ 7 ~

in the market and they are also protected by law through job contracts. There is no need for

revolution because workers are profiting for the gains of capitalism as well. They are able to

consume and increase their utility. Capitalism is a system composed of rational self-interested

and utility maximizing individuals, including the workers, who now have vested interests in the

system (property, consumerism, education), enough to keep them away from revolution.

If there is one thing that the liberal and the socialist agreed upon is the evolution of

history in linear pattern towards more freedom and equality, no matter how contradicting this

two notions sound. The passion for equality remains the “engine of history” at any time, be that

the times of Tocqueville, Marx or “our times”.

~ 8 ~

References

Aron, R. (translated by Hasimja, E.). Les etapes de la pensee sociologique [The steps of sociological thought], p.217

Heilbroner, R.(1997). Teachings from the worldly philosophy. Norton&Company: New York

~ 9 ~