Difference Between Karl Marx And Oscar Wild’s Socialism And Also Criticism Of Human Nature Within Socialism For Aesthetes
There has been and still are lots of ways in order to achieve the perfect harmony between people and nature, therefore they keep on living within this manner. Lots of attempts have been done to obtain this aim until now. Beyond these attempts to attain a harmony with nature, a slight difference appears within human nature itself; that is the ability to control own actions. However animals are just living through their base animal instincts. Individuals’ ability is to take their own decisions according to their own will generated self-oriented society in which people owned lands and animals to fulfill their fundamental needs as they thought that they were given superiority. As written in Genesis; ‘’Have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”. All these facts resulted in a selfish, egoistic, self centered societies which by time even started to feel supremacy against each other due to the property they possessed. So wealth became the symbol of power among them.
By time individuals’ evil side started to emerge due to their self-oriented habit, so people started to seek ways to dwell together and also to maintain justice and security, therefore people constitued government as the last progress. The presence of government and how should it be has been questioned numerous times and also has been the subject of various debates and essays, therefore many different ideas have been emerged from various cultures and orders which have tried to reach perfection. Thus conflicts have also started between these unusual ideas that are called utopias. Oscar Wild also wrote and represented his own utopia in ‘’The Soul Of Man Under Socialisim ‘’. Wild in his essay emphasises abolition of private property , significance of individualisim and harm of government over the individuals. The writer is supporting socialism as the best way to dwell and to reach to the higher knowledge of self. As Tony W.Garland critisized “Wilde’s vision of socialism has an aesthetic ideological core and is itself an aesthetic creation’’ .
Wild indicates that socialisim he describes will generate individualisim, however in the socialisim Karl Marx emphasises , it generates communism which is contradicting with Wild’s view. Communism is the idea of being united in comradeship and so closer their cooperation on behalf of all contrary to individualism promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group. Socialisim which Oscar Wild voices is different than socialism that is merely known from Karl Marx. According to Karl Marx socialism is just a transitional phase from capitalism to communism while in Wild’s utopia it just generates individualism as we read in the Socialism For Aesthetes “Socialism itself will be of value simply because it will lead to individualisim” therefore socialism is an aesthetic and ideological mean to achieve individualsim rather than representation of an ideal structure .
Secondly Marx’s socialism is the revolutionary dictatorship of the worker class (proletariat) ,as also mentioned in The Withering State “Between capitalisim and communisim lies the period of revolutionary transformation of one into another there corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” Whereas in Socialism For Aesthetes the writer does not speak about how the state should be. He tells neither about the regime nor about how it will change the structure of the society from private...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document