ose appears to be to make clear the principles of each discipline as a part of privileged young men's training for future leadership.
Marx's approach to politics, argumentation, and ethics differs from Aristotle in the first instance because by no means does he confine his audience to privileged young men. Instead, he is addressing all of society, and in particular the less privileged members of society. There are clues throughout Marx's writings. The most famous clue is contained in the Communist Manifesto, which closes with the call by Marx and Engels to the workers of the world to rise up and lose their chains (Manifesto 500). Contained in that statement is a call for political transformation of the society that the workers find themselves involved in. In order to get to the point of calling for wholesale political change, Marx has to provide his reasons, which are the background for that same statement. The reasons that he provides--not only in the Manifesto but also in other texts--amount to a sharp critique of the society that he wants to change. In that critique is contained Marx's views of what moral experience, which is the whole process of history, is not, and thus the critique, or analysis, of the facts of social organization and history is always looking forward, by implication, to what morality, society, and indeed history, should be. It is in that way that the moral vision that Marx develops takes shape as political advocacy.
Aristotle describes ethics as one of the practical sciences (308). He intends for his ideas to make a real difference in the behavior and experience of humanity. Marx intends to make a real difference in human experience as well. However, the respective bases upon which Aristotle and Marx seek to make a difference are different in themselves. Additionally, their methods of describing the structure or framework of their moral vision are significantly different. Aristotle's method is to present a ...