Freedom Tocqueville Analysis

The love of equality undermines freedom. Alexis de Tocqueville, has plenty to bring to the table with his cerebral perspective of liberty. His idea of freedom is to have equal opportunity but not equal outcome. Another word for that would be the ‘quality of condition’: the opposite of egalitarianism, in and of itself. Although Tocqueville does not believe that the American public can use their consumptive freedom properly, he states “the Americans entertain the same opinion with respect to the majority” (Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pg. 126). There is a leap with certain political beliefs that Tocqueville has with democratic standards in the United States. Karl Marx would disagree with Tocqueville’s idea of commercial capitalism, as Marx
“How?”, one may ask. Individual thoughts don’t have the same voice as others. More clearly put, the democratic process is demonstrated when the majority concludes on an initiative while the minority must comply with that passed initiative. Freedom is acknowledging one’s own free will and thought no matter if their opinion lies in the minority. “Although men cannot become absolutely equal unless they are entirely free; and consequently equality, pushed to its furthest extent, may be confounded with freedom, yet there is good reason for distinguishing the one from the other”, quotes Tocqueville (Tocqueville, Democracy in America, pg.220) Reaching for an unrealistic standard of equality will diminish Tocqueville’s idea of freedom. There is no such phenomenon as complete utter equality. As mentioned by Tocqueville, his ideology summarizes quality of condition almost perfectly. Therefore, his point on freedom is the opposite of the idea of egalitarianism, which Marx supports
Marx describes the exploitation of the working classes/workers will always be in an inferior bargaining position to the owners when they contracting for wages and working conditions; the results are substance wages and brutal working conditions. “After labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” (Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Programme,” Section III, pg.3) Marx’s judgement on solely the proletariat being the oppressed and the bourgeois being the oppressors clouds the positive aspects of capitalism. The fact that one can have the potential to create upper development for oneself while benefiting others along the way is an outstanding idea. Marx misconstrues the idea of a capitalistic system, which is beneficial to both parties as being self-centered, when its actual intent is to keep everything in the workplace productive. I can agree that certain aspects of capitalism can affect those working at the ‘bottom of the chain’ per se, by limiting their ability to pursue leisurely activities when compared to those above them. Yet, there needs to be