Elitism, Marxism, and pluralism are all political theories that can be used to understand how the modern state as we understand a live in it today functions. All three theories highlight the importance of different things and stress successes or failures of the state to be attributed to different functions or aspects of state operations. Although it is important to understand how different aspects of each perspectives can help understand how the modern state functions, it is imperative to identify most strongly with one theory in order to fully understand the modern state. Elitism speaks about an individual or group of powerful elites that govern the state, hold the power both economically, and politically. Marxism is all about the bottom line, the economy drives political power, that’s to say he how has the control of the most resources, and material forces has the most logical political power. The underlining idea behind pluralism is international relations, the idea that transnational actors do have an influence on the government of the modern state. This theory views all organized groups as being potential political actors, and the idea is that all these political actors mobilize support to achieve policy goals.
The definition of modern state is also essential to understanding which political theory best applies. For the purposes of this paper, the definition of modern state will be as follows: an organized territory with defined geographical boundaries that are recognized by other states has a body of law and institutions of government. A state that offers protection, order, justice, foreign trade and the facilitations of inner state trade in exchange for citizen loyalty. The goal of the modern state is to maintain order and...
... middle of paper ...
... in his works how the family unit as we understand it now came to be as a result of capitalism and the need to prove ownership of private property. The modern state is most evidently ruled by Marxist theories on capitalism. The gross domestic production (GDP) currently rules the majority of all social debates and choices made by all authorities. The money to have the choice is gained through the means of capitalism.
In our modern state, the economy, and production are most fundamental factor in our functioning society, no elite group or individual, or vote among many interested parties can over weigh our need to produce, and earn. There are factors of our modern state that may align with both elitism and pluralism yet, the bottom line is that capitalism, and Marxist theory best explains the biggest picture of the modern state, both nationally and internationally.
Pluralism, in short, means that power lies not in the hands of one dominant person or group, but rather is disbursed among many. This is because each group has a different set of expertise and resources. We can refer to this system as a polyarchy, a term coined by renowned political scientist Robert Dahl in his 1956 book A Preface to Democratic Theory. This is in contrast to a hierarchal system, which is structured like a pyramid where all groups are ranked above or below others. However, even in a polyarchy, we should not conclude that there an elite is completely non-existent. Sociologist Susan Keller believed that there is pyramid structure, yes, but a myriad of pyramids rather than just one.
In this type of capitalist system, many Neo-Marxists had strayed from the strict economic materialism of Karl Marx to a form of cultural and social evaluations of Marxism that diluted the objective analysis of the capitalist system. More so, Marx made the assumption that cultural and social aspects of the means of production and labor had come from the “outside”, which had ignored the possibility that the “competitive advantage” had become the new mantra of the post-WWII era. In this manner, the modernity of Marxist thought had become diluted by the variability of social and cultural analysis of Marxist values, which had been somewhat diluted in the “church” of capitalism that Marx interpreted as being an outside issue in terms of the means of
Karl Marx never saw his ideals and beliefs, as the founding father of communist thought, implemented in the world and society because he died in 1883.1 The communist ideology did not rise to power until the beginning of the 20th century. Then it would be implemented and put into practice in the largest country in the world producing a concept that would control half of the world’s population in less than 50 years. The Manifesto of the Communist Party, written by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, searched for a perfect society living in equality and united in freedom. According to Marx this could only be accomplished in an anti-capitalist society.2 When their ideals where implemented in the 20th century, their message became warped and disfigured by the leadership of the worlds’ communist powers. Communism became in some ways more and in others less than Marx had first envisioned so many years before in 1848. Marx’s sought a social “Utopia,” while modern communist thought became a view of world domination.3 Many of the centralized governments of modern communism have fallen apart toward the end of the 20th century, confronted with concepts of self-government and revolution. Therefore, it is vital to document the rise and fall of modern communism throughout the world, and review the modern communist thought as it contrasted with that of Marx and Engels over 150 years ago.
They were able to take advantage of the growing technology and exploration to advance out of the middle class and become extremely rich. Through their wealth, the bourgeois were able to gain an enormous amount of influence in society. For example, they have “exclusive political sway” (Marx 18). In other words, the state exists entirely to serve the needs of the bourgeois. However, even more importantly so, their existence is bringing about a gradual disintegration of sentiment and true relations. People are now measured by the amount of material goods they own. Therefore, doctors, lawyers, and other originally honest occupations have become based entirely on wages and familial relationships no longer exist. They have instead been replaced by purely money relations. The bourgeois are also constantly exploiting the lower classes, otherwise known as the proletarians. (Marx
H.G. Wells was a prolific writer. In his book The Time Machine, he takes his readers on a journey into a future that is vastly different than they might have expected. During Well's lifetime, England was marked by distinct class differences, the working class and the idle rich. It is not surprising that in his writings Well's Marxist attitude comes through. This is especially seen in his fascination about the class division between the Eloi and the Morlocks, the effect capitalism has on the future, and the advancement of the human
This essay defines the theory of “elitism” and “pluralism” and how these two theories compare. First, this essay describes the theory of “elitism”. Then, it provides some historical events that we’ve studied in class that support the theory of “elitism” in the political process. Next, this essay describes the theory of “pluralism”. Then, it provides some historical events that we’ve studied in class that support the theory of “pluralism” in the political process. Finally, this reading response explains how these two theories compare.
... forces, forms of state and the world orders. The theory provides a significant and decisive framework that facilitates the market analyst to presume that inter-state co-operation is plausible without even a single hegemony. It exposes that the cultural, political and economic struggles among social forces and state clarify the emergence of international regimes and global civil society. The essentials of thus neo- Gramscian include that the hegemony bases upon the consensus and consent rather than the coercion. A wider theory of state emerges within this neo- Gramscian theory. The concept of hegemony relative to this theory’s perspective is the comprehensive concept of control. Thus concluding it, the neo-Gramscian concept of hegemony is the appearance of largely based authority apparent in the approval of ideas and supported by institutions and material resources.
In this essay, I will discuss how Marx’s Theory in the Communist Manifesto outlines how the Bourgeoisie supplies the proletariat with it’s own element of political and general education, which in the end, leads to the demise of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist class. In the movie, Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore, he clearly outlines contemporary issues that show how the capitalist class causes it’s own demise through it’s selfish focus on profit and how a united population can eradicate slavery.
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World demonstrates key principles of Marxist literary theory by creating a world where mass happiness is the tool used by positions of power known as the Alphas to control the masses known as the Epsilons at the cost of the people's freedom to choose. The social castes of Brave New World, Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons, draw parallels to the castes applied in Marxist literary theory, the Aristocracy, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat.
In his Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx created a radical theory revolving not around the man made institution of government itself, but around the ever present guiding vice of man that is materialism and the economic classes that stemmed from it. By unfolding the relat...
The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, a period of political turmoil in Europe. Its meaning in today’s capitalistic world is a very controversial issue. Some people, such as the American government, consider socialism taboo and thus disregard the manifesto. They believe that capitalism, and the world itself, has changed greatly from the one Marx was describing in the Manifesto and, therefore, that Marx’s ideas cannot be used to comprehend today’s economy. Others find that the Manifesto highlights issues that are still problematic today. Marx’s predicative notions in the Communist Manifesto are the key to understanding modern day capitalism.
Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep understanding of the system to predict its pattern and protect ourselves from its negative sides.
Karl Marx may have been the most influential socialist thinker of them all, he referred to his own philosophy as historical materialism, which is thought to be, the evolution of society historically driven by class struggle. According to him, class conflict within capitalism arises because of intensified contradictions between highly productive and socialized production which is performed by the proletariat and the private ownership and the private surplus product/surplus value performed by the small minority of private owners known as the bourgeoisie. When the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, the social unrest...
This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage in foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics. Some of the characteristics that make up a modern nation-state are: the population of the territory is united in the national identity and traditions, has an official language or languages and common descent, has an organized government, shall have independence and sovereign (self-ruled), and has a defined territory and/or borders. An example of a modern nation-state is Egypt. Egypt’s identity is closely tied to its location and its long history.
Our lives are greatly affected by our culture, ecological environment, political environment and our economic structure. The overarching method of organizing a complex modern society relies heavily on the founding economic theories regarding method of production, method of organization, and the distribution of wealth among the members of. This paper, specifically deals with the views and theoretical backgrounds of two dominant theories of the past century, Keynesianism and Neo-liberalism. Our social economic order is product of the two theories and has evolved through many stages to come to where it is today. The two ideologies rely on different foundations for their economic outcomes but both encourage capitalism and claim it to be the superior form of economic organization. Within the last quarter of the 20th century, neo-liberalism has become the dominant ideology driving political and economic decisions of most developed nations. This dominant ideology creates disparities in wealth and creates inequality through the promotion of competitive markets free from regulation. Neo-liberal’s ability to reduce national government’s size limits the powers and capabilities of elected representatives and allows corporations to become much larger and exert far greater force on national and provincial governments to act in their favour. Hence, it is extremely important at this time to learn about the underlying power relations in our economy and how the two ideologies compare on important aspects of political economy. In comparing the two theories with respect to managing the level of unemployment, funding the welfare sates, and pursuing national or international objectives, I will argue that Keynesianism provides far greater stability, equ...