Equal work, equal wages, equal food, equal opportunities, equal power. On the outside, a society where every one of its citizens was completely equal sounds and appears like a good thing, even a great thing. No one had too much power, everyone seemed to be happy, and most importantly everyone worked to better the community instead of themselves. This is what Socialism was portrayed as: a system in which everyone worked together to benefit the state. Contradicting this fabricated image, life under Socialism did not succeed in equality for men and women, and it caused people to do whatever necessary in order to gain some sense of individualism. While equality for all people in all aspects of life sounds appealing, it was an unachievable goal …show more content…
While this may have in part been true, overall this was a false portrayal of what life under Socialism was really like. In order to secure obedience, the Soviet Union “brainwashed” the younger generation and lied to the entire population about how life in the West was. Peter Sis, a man who grew up in Czechoslovakia during the Soviet Union, writes about this in a children’s book. He writes, “As long as he could remember, he had loved to draw. At first he drew shapes. Then he drew people. After drawing whatever he wanted to at home, he drew what he was told to at school. He drew tanks. He drew wars. He didn’t question what he was being told” (Sis). In this excerpt, Sis writes about his love for drawing as a child, and how as he grew up, the state took away his freedom of choice by telling him what to draw. Later on in his book he writes, “Slowly he started to question. He painted what he wanted to – in secret” (Sis). This shows that despite the image of conformity and obedience, people like Peter Sis went against the rules of the state in order to do what he loved and to have a sense of uniqueness. This need for uniqueness is established yet again in another piece of writing. It focuses on the underground black market that was rampant in the Soviet Union during Socialism. This black market sold Western goods and allowed customers to express their …show more content…
Despite men and women being portrayed as equals, in reality, the percentages of genders in different careers were astonishingly skewed. Men also were overwhelmingly prominent in the highest paying careers while women help most of the lower paying careers. Conformity under Socialism was also a huge Soviet ideal and was portrayed as such. In reality, though, citizens who lived under Socialism did whatever they could to be unique despite the consequences. Some things they did in secret, like drawing pictures that were not depicting the Soviet ideals like Sis, or buying goods through the illegal black market. These actions expressed people’s uniqueness, which was not stifled by the State’s portrayal of conformity. Looking at how life under Socialism was portrayed during that time period is a completely incorrect view of the harsh reality of life under
The end of 19th century, Western Society was changing physically, philosophically, economically, and politically. It was an influential and critical time in that the Industrial Revolution created a new class. Many contemporary observers realized the dramatic changes in society. Among these were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who observed the conditions of the working man, or the proletariat, and saw a change in how goods and wealth were distributed. In their Communist Manifesto, they described their observations of the inequalities between the emerging wealthy middle class and the proletariat as well as the condition of the proletariat. They argued that the proletariat was at the mercy of the new emerging middle class, or bourgeoisie, and could only be rescued by Communism: a new economic form.
There is a problem with women’s view of gender identity in post communistic Eastern Europe. In the post-communism era there has been a promotion of gender difference rather than equality, where the status of women has regressed. There has been a lack of availability for economic opportunities and female representation in politics. These issues are addressed in the articles; ‘Incorporating Gendered Identities into Transition Studies,’ ‘Women in Post-Communist politics’ and ‘Feminism and Post-Communism’ and I will investigate the reasons why women are confused of their role in society post-communism.
In the time period that the three women lived in the USSR, society was ruled by socialism (communists did exist, but were not the majority). Under this theory of government, everyone worked; it was believed to be a disgrace if a person simply sat at home and did not participate in the labor force. The goal was to have every citizen in the USSR working; there was little focus on quality or productivity, "Early Soviet policies rested on the assumption that genuine equality and independence for women depended on full economics participation." (Lapidus 168) People were encouraged to work, not to meet their potential in the workplace. In order to receive their monthly pay in rubles, the workers had a quota to meet. The workers rarely met this quota --...
To further transform the Soviet Union, state officials encouraged citizens to help improve the literacy rate and recognize the many heroes of the socialist state. These heroes, including Joseph Stalin, “received huge amounts of fan mail and were lionized on appearances throughout the country” (72). They also encouraged the remaking of individuals, particularly through work. Before the transformation, many did not enjoy working, but “under socialism, it was the thing that filled life with meaning” (75). Numerous interviews an author had with “transformed” felons, illustrated that even criminals could be transformed into good citizens through work (76). However, Sheila Fitzpatrick argues that these interviews were “clearly a propaganda project.”
Emphasized throughout Soviet Russia, ‘vertical collectivism,’ occurs when hierarchy defines one’s rank, and submission to authority comes at the cost of self-sacrifice. “Hundreds. Thousands. Millions. Millions of what? Stomachs, and heads, and legs, and tongues, and souls. And it doesn’t even matter whether they fit together. Just millions. Just flesh. Human flesh” (Rand 403). In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that cost of ‘self-sacrifice’ was one’s individuality—the defining factors that allowed one human to be unique, different from the rest. “There are things in men,” Andrei Taganov argues in the face of his Party, “in the best of us, which are above...
Evidence: Joseph Stalin was the son of a poor shoemaker from a backward province with a significantly low education. Stalin had always had a place for faith in the destiny of the Russian social revolution and an incredible amount of determination to play a role in it. Stalin’s rise to power was remarkable and deadly, yet in an unexplainable twenty-nine years of leadership he turned Russia into a highly industrialized nation. Stalin was a tyrannical ruler who played the most significant role in shaping the direction of Europe at the end of World War II in 1945. He went from a young revolutionist to an absolute leader of Soviet Russia.
... Mainly a reaction against the unregulated capitalism of the time, socialism proposed that society as a whole should control the means of production, and that the government exists only to oversee its initial phases and then to become nonexistent, leaving the people to govern themselves cooperatively. This movement was inspired by the problems that the Industrial Revolution presented for the common worker. Working conditions, long hours, and low pay made many workers want to band together and achieve a socialist system. Socialism is still important today for several reasons. For one, it helps secure the rights of every citizen and resident unknown. Second, it promotes equality in numerous areas, including economic, political and social forces. Third, it offers a chance for all people to attain medical insurance coverage, regardless of financial or social status.
Each of us is inherently conditioned into a particular way of life by our community and the politics that govern such a society. At any current time, the organization of political principles, such as democracy or distributive justice, has been a predetermined result. We blindly accept that our ancestors were correct and ignore the possibility of objections. Yet, this is a grave mistake, especially considering the fact that our lives and the way society is organized are so intertwined. This means “we cannot avoid thinking of our political practices as alterable, and even (if only in retrospect) as possible objects of choice” (Bird 3). To some, one of the “alterable” political practices of distributive justice, in Socialist Equality of Opportunity (EOP), may seem extreme. The word Socialism has developed into a “meaningless word” that serves as a synonym to tyranny (Orwell 4). Yet, a specific form of socialism, equality of opportunity, has many merits over common, currently practiced systems and should be considered as a legitimate ideal for distributive justice. To realize the aforementioned thesis it is important to first define equality of opportunity. Within the definition, many reasonable objections will surface, but through disputing common theories on distributive justice, it will be relatively simple to recognize the following: EOP is the most rational form of distributive justice given the inherent nature of society, it eliminates a vast number of inherent inequalities, and is the most efficient form of distributive justice if equality of opportunity can be granted.
According to the humanities based themes, autonomy and responsibility are defined as “the individual person has the ability to make choices; with those choices comes a responsibility for the consequences of those choices.” [i] This can be related to the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx in the 1800’s. Even deeper though, it correlates the class struggles that were apparent in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Marx knew there was a division of classes; the bourgeoisie was the wealthy upper class and they proletariats were the lower working classes of Europe. This is where the theme of autonomy and responsibility steps in and plays a role in the changes that were made in society. The proletariats recognized that they were treated unfairly, which led them to the decision of stepping up and taking a stand. Through the Communist Manifesto, they took responsibility and attained the equality they felt they deserved.
"SOCY 151 - Lecture 12 - Marx's Theory of History." Open Yale Courses. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Aldous Huxley famously once said in his novel, Brave New World, that there is “No social stability, without individual stability.” This ideology is specifically true in society’s lives today, as in order for us to work together in a community, we must first satisfy all of our individual needs. Humans are all innately selfish and self-centred and when our lives are on the line we will think more about ourselves than our neighbours and peers. A community of people is a mixture of people from different backgrounds and cultures who hold a multitude of different ideologies and beliefs. In order for a community to retain its stability and thus its health and harmony, the stability of each of its individual members must be fulfilled. A person’s independent security can only obtain stability through an abundance of a variety of resources at their disposal, a set of rules or laws and people who enforce them, and a community that they feel they belong in and share the same ideological beliefs. Without these basic needs, an
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).
Democrats and Republicans, despite their differences, both agree on two things: one, the United States spends an overwhelmingly large portion of their Gross Domestic Product on health care (approximately 10% more than the world average) and two, their current health care system is radically unjust. Even though a vast majority of the United States is screaming, “I don’t want Socialism!” in response to government-funded health care, the unassailable truth is that in America right now, there is a lot of Socialism. The taxes that the employed pay fund public education, the military, and roads; and those who do not pay taxes to contribute still go to their local high school and drive on the same highways. There is even Socialized medicine -- there is just an extremely ineffective system of medicine. This is because, in the US, anyone can go to virtually any hospital and get treatment for anything from a broken leg to a tumor in their brain. They may not be able to pay for the treatment — it might even bankrupt them — but they can receive treatment nonetheless. In 2009, according to the United States Census Bureau, about 48.6 million people (15.7% of the population) did not have health care, and this number has hardly changed in the last four years. The rich can pay out-of-the-pocket for any procedure they want, whether it be for a terminal illness or another lip injection, while the poor go bankrupt for falling off a ladder. The lack of coverage for the bottom 40% only increases the gap between the poor and the rich and the middle class is gradually disappearing, which not only places this country at a moral crossroad but also threatens a heavy blow to the economy. Affordable healthcare is a civil right that all members of a free nati...
Revolution is a topic at the heart of the Socialist and Marxist Ideology. The processes that bring about the insurrection vary, but for Marx and Engels, the only viable coup d’état is a violent one, that will enable a transition to the best society and human life. In Marxism, revolution is inevitable because of precedents set by developmental historicism and then inequality rampant in society. These negative and traditional attributes give rise to class-consciousness in a manner that promotes the inexorable path of society from capitalism to socialism.
Karl Marx analyzed class relations and social conflict using materialist interpretation of historical development and eventually creating a communist class, in hope of providing everyone with the same necessities. Marx argued that the capitalist bourgeoisie mercilessly exploited the proletariat class. He realized that the performance carried out by the proletariats created considerable abundance for the capitalist. Marxism focuses on exterminating the bourgeoisie and supplying the people with balanced amounts of funds ultimately creating the proletariat class efficient for everyone.