Edmund Burke and Karl Marx would have been mortified by each other's conception of acceptable progress and the movement of history. This repugnance, in fact, was actually expressed by Marx, reflecting the two polar views of his and Burke's respective philosopher parents, in this quote directed to Burke: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The sycophant, who in the pay of the English oligarchy played the romantic laudator temporis acti against the French Revolution just as, in the pay of the North American colonies, at the beginning of the American disturbances, he had played the liberal against the English oligarchy, was a real vulgar bourgeois. From Das Capital. This condemnation of the "truly vulgar bourgeois" character is the most brutal of insults for Marx - it underlines in the philosopher's own words how fundamentally incompatible their two perspectives are. One component of that perspective, particularly emblematic of their contrary views, is their vision of the correct movement of history. While Burke advocates “organic” and gradual constitutional reform, Marx calls (literally; he proves it in the closing line of his manifesto) a massive and violent revolution. Burke, in his letter Revolution in France, uses the language of naturalness throughout, so that an organic motif emerges. This motif fits his defense of gradual change: while he admits a dynamic conception of society in his philosophy, he is careful to reject any sudden new order; things must evolve slowly, as a plant does: "Our political system is... a permanent body composed of transitory parts... moving through the various tenors of perpetual decay, fall, renewal and progression. Thus preserving the nature's method in the conduct of the state, in what we improve, we are never entirely new; in what we maintain we are never entirely obsolete" (p. 39). Tradition also played an important role in Burke's philosophy on natural movement. of history. For him it is imperative that tradition is recognized; this idea, of course, echoes his appreciation of incremental evolution. Rejection of the past must not be tolerated. One can see this notion, for example, by examining Burke's theoretical support: he almost always defends his ideas with historical examples. It is with this attitude that Burke approaches the French Revolution. He is a fierce critic, who denounces it as a violent rebellion against tradition and righteous authority. Not only did he believe in private property (another point of conflict with Marx), but such blatant disregard for tradition would surely have received his denunciation: he was known to predict that this "experiment" would end badly (this prediction was, in fact, what who won over most of his followers after a frosty initial reception of his work). “The very idea of ​​the creation of a new government is enough to fill us with disgust and horror” (p.36) he proclaims in Revolution in France. Such a radical creation contradicts its plant model and ignores the tradition of the past – it is, simply put, unacceptable – and condemned to death. What distances Burke from Marx are his essentially reactionary views. The revolution in France is clearly anti-Enlightenment and essentially serves to criticize the revolution. His bitter and reactionary vision is betrayed in the text: "The age of chivalry has passed. That of the sophists, economists and calculators has succeeded" (p. 89). Such a quote betrays Burke's primary desires: a solid respect for tradition and a desire to slow down.