Edmund Burke and Karl Marx would have been mortified by the other's conception of acceptable progress and the movement of history. Such repugnance, in fact, was effectively expressed by Marx, reflecting the two polar views of his and Burke's respective philosophical parents, in this quote to Burke: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay The Courtiers – who, in the pay of the English oligarchy, played the role of romantic laudator temporis acti against the French Revolution , just as, in the pay of the English oligarchy In the North American colonies, at the start of the American troubles, he had played the role of the liberal against the English oligarchy - he was a truly vulgar bourgeois. brutal insults towards Marx - underlines, in the philosopher's own words, how fundamentally incompatible their two perspectives are. One element of this perspective, particularly emblematic of their opposing views, is their view of the proper movement of history. While Burke supports “organic” and gradual constitutional reform, Marx calls (literally; evidence in the last line of his manifesto) for a massive and violent revolution. Burke, in his letter Revolution in France, uses the language of the natural throughout, so that an organic pattern emerges. This motive corresponds to his advocacy of progressive change: even if he admits a dynamic conception of society within 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...which evolves through the various durations of perpetual decay, fall, renovation, and progression. Thus, in preserving the method of nature in the conduct of the State, in what we improve, we are never entirely new; in what we retain, we are never totally obsolete” (p. 39). Tradition also played a large role in Burke's philosophy of natural motion. of history. He considers it imperative that tradition be recognized; this idea, of course, echoes his appreciation of gradual evolution. The rejection of the past must not be tolerated. We can understand this notion, for example, by examining Burke's theoretical support: he almost always defends his ideas with historical examples. It is with such an attitude that Burke approaches the French Revolution. He is a fierce critic, denouncing it as a violent rebellion against tradition and proper authority. Not only did he believe in private property (another point of contention with Marx), but such blatant disregard for tradition would certainly earn him his denunciation: he predicted that this "experiment" would end badly (this prediction was, in fact, did, which won over the majority of his supporters after an initial frosty reception of his work). “The very idea of ​​creating a new government is enough to fill us with disgust and horror” (p. 36) he proclaims in Révolution en France. Such a radical creation contradicts its plant model and ignores the tradition of the past - it is, in a few words, unacceptable - and doomed to failure. What also distances Burke from Marx are his essentially reactionary views. The revolution in France is openly anti-Enlightenment and primarily serves to criticize the revolution. His bitter and reactionary view is betrayed in the text: “The age of chivalry is over. That of the sophists, economists and calculators has succeeded” (p. 89). Such a quote betrays desires.