Question I
Gandhi, John Locke, and Karl Marx were all political philosophers, and their roles and opinions have forever influenced the world politics.
John Locke ideas and thoughts have been used a lot to shape the politics of various governments like the United States and the United Kingdom. In most occasions in his writing, Locke has avoided justifying the use of violence as a political tool; there are several incident as where he has indicated thy importance to war. War in the viewpoint of Locke is a state of destruction and enmity which has been caused by pre-meditated attempts by one people to the life of another person. According to Locke, there is the state of war and state of nature which are two different issues. War exists when a person decides to use force on another person, and the situation lacks a common authority. Therefore, the person who has been attacked has the right to fight back in self-defense. A transgression against the law of nature results to conflicts and acts of violence.
Locke’s view on self-defense is equated to applying the right of punishment in the wider context. In nature, human beings must live and rule by common equity and reason which has been set by God. The offender of this rule is therefore turned to a threat to human beings linking the use of right of punishment to punish for the criminal offenses. However, Locke indicates that establishment of civil society is the way people voluntarily give their right to self-defense to a common authority where they get protection from an “indifferent judge” who interprets the “established settled, known law”.
A legitimate use of violence according to Locke is found when the citizens give their powers to the government. The government then uses the powers responsibly to secure their lives and property by punishing those who violate the common law. Locke also speaks of the “Just War” when there is violence as a result of a person staging a defense to the aggressor. However, the initial cause of the force is used to determine what was just or unjust. The aggressor or attacker surrenders his rights upon initiating force and setting up force as his own standard of rule. Therefore, the defender gains the despotic and arbitrary power, for example, over captured soldiers in the event of just war. The aggressors can be enslaved or put to death by the defenders, and their property can be used to compensate the defendant for the damages sustained by the war. However, the property taken must only be equal to what was used up during the war. The wife and children of the aggressor, whether a soldier or robber, should not be imposed due to the acts of the aggressor, that is the property of the wife or his children cannot be used to pay for the crimes the aggressor committed. What that just use of violence is what John Locker supported in his political theories.
Why and under what conditions is violence legitimate for Marx?
Many revolutionary movements have always said to have drawn their inspirations from the writings of Karl Marx and other political philosophers who supported the use of civilian force to overthrow the unpopular government like Engels and Lenin. “There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” (Hunt, 177) These were the words of Karl Marx in 1848 depicting his support for the use of violence to overthrow a regime that is against the will of the civilian. Marx early writings, especially, depict violence as a necessary evil and an engine social and economic change. Marx points to capitalism as the start of societal classes whereby the working class is enslaved by the property owners leading to a state of perpetual war. Marx notes that the process from slavery to the current wage system has taken time to develop, citing that a revolution could have made the process quicker. “The Communists openly declare that their ends can only be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have the world to win,” (Marx, Engels, and Hobsbawm, 60).
According to Marx, violence is a tool for social reform. Communities taking up arms against the oppressive rulers are legitimate in his political focus. He believed that a democratic was just pointless. Marx argued that people of different classes cannot communicate with one another effectively, so as to understand one another as they are conditioned to different beliefs. Therefore, their meeting will only turn to a conflict which can only be solved by the use of force. The proletariat’s nature could only be changed through violence, renovating the working class psychologically, so that it fits to rule.
The use of violence and force were not considered in themselves good, according to Marxism, but a means that was necessary transform society. Violence would bring equality, democracy, and humanity in the society than the capitalists who were considered exploitive. The arguments of Marx relating to violence and its significance were driven by his understanding that the ruling classes’ reactions would go no short of that to the proletariat that would rise to challenge their cause. Therefore, the proletariats were, therefore, to prepare for violence that, since it would be met unto them for daring to question the ruling class regarding demanding for an equal status. Marx therefore, in his support for revolutionary changes in capitalist societies, regards violence as a useful tool in bringing political changes in country or society.
Question II
Violence plays a vital political role in though not in all cases. Acts of violence have had a lot of impacts in politics in various places in the world. Ruthless dictators like Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq have been uprooted through actions of violence. In situations where the involved parties are in no position to engage in dialogue, the use of violence is only the legitimate way to solve the problems that arise. The fight against dictators and organized international terror groups are some o the way violence is the justifiable way to solve the problem.
The American war of revolution in 1776 is one of the examples of the acts of violence that have significant influence in the political future of a country. The armed conflict between the Great Britain and the thirteen colonies of the America led to the birth of a new sovereign state, the United States of America. The American militias led by George Washington drove away the British soldiers and defeated them to lead the country. The war freed the United States from the oppressive taxes by the British parliament and independence.
Violence has been used to achieve lasting solutions. In the above case of the American War or Independence, the result of the war was a great country with vast economy and military power. If the Americans had not resisted the oppressive British regime, the nation would have remained poor and oppressed. Its rise to become a superpower would never have been possible. Therefore, violence played an important role in the establishment of the United States to a sovereign country and a superpower.
Violence has also been used to avoid a permanent evil. The invasion and the defeat of the Nazis and the ruthless German dictator were very significant in eliminating permanent evil in the world. The Nazi regime had invaded many territories in Europe and committed many atrocities such as the annihilation of the Jews and also caused the deaths of a lot of millions of people. To end the regime the allied nations rose against the Germany and her allies and consequently led to its defeat and the collapse of the evil Nazi regime. Therefore, the use of violence by the allied nations led to a permanent peace in the world after the World War II that we are enjoying today. In addition, the United States use of violence against terror groups such as Taliban in Afghanistan and the capture of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein of Iraq and their consequent execution have pacified the regions and the world from the terror activities. The terror groups have been a threat to the world peace, and the use of violence against them is the only solution.
In conclusion, the early political philosophers Gandhi, Karl Marx and John Locke were right in the expression of their views on violence. In various cases in life, the use of violence in seeking change or use of non-violent methods will call for their application in life. However, no method will purely work in solving all the issues. Use violence has called a lot of significant changes in the world and proved a good alternative when the situation calls for it.
Works Cited
Hunt, Richard N. "Strategy II: Alliance of the Majority Classes." The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1974. 176-211.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. "The Communist Manifesto, with an introduction by Eric Hobsbawm." (1998). Print.
