Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, and Friedrich Nietzsche were all nineteenth-century contemporaries who joined in the assumption that a philosophy of politics necessarily entailed a vision of human history. Although there may be several areas of agreement among all three of these thinkers, Mill and Nietzsche, despite differences between them, represent dimensions of a persistent resistence to some of Marx's most fundamental claims about history and politics. A prime example of a problem that both Mill, and Nietzsche agree to disagree with is Marx's views on individual liberties, and personal freedoms.
Karl Marx's believes as written in The Communist Manifesto that the basic theory of the Communists is the "abolition of private property"(Marx pg.232). He then proceeds to explain how the abolition of private property relates to a persons personal freedoms. According to Marx, when you abolish private property among individuals you take away their personal freedoms because a man's freedoms are derived from the ability to own your own property and work for your own benefit. He writes: "We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right to personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity, and independence." (Marx pg.232) .
.
Many critics talk of the fear that they have of the Communists doing away with private property. Marx answers these critics with the Communists point of view that even in the current existing state of society, nine-tenths of the population have already had their private property done away with by a select elite few that control nine-tenths of the property, leaving the last one-tenth of the property to be distributed between the vast majority of the population. I have a major problem with that rational. There is nothing saying that a small urban apartment isn't as valuable to one man, as a large estate is to another.
