Modern Political Ideas and Doctrines
a) How did Marx conceive the transition from capitalism to communism?
Karl Marx is considered to be a historian, a philosopher, a political
thinker, and an economist amongst other things. There is a standard
misconception that Marx had no idea of economics, by contrast he was
quite the economist, and was able to layout the transition of
capitalism to communism in a very logical and understanding way. The
transition of capitalism arises through three core factors: the
philosophy behind the capitalist system, the economic and the
political part of it
Marx presented the fact that capitalism was doomed, by bringing in
history and showing how other systems (such as feudalism) fell. Marx
theorized the transition of capitalism to communism, in the same way
history showed stage which tribal systems shifted to a feudalist
system, and thereafter a feudalist system to a capitalist system. The
basics therefore behind his theory of capitalism falling was that
everything which starts must end due to changing factor affecting it,
and the un flexibility of each system to cope.
“Capitalism had to be replaced, according to Marx, because the
evolution of society's institutions is a natural and inevitable
process of history”[1]
Firstly Marx outlined the philosophical aspects which outline the
transition; Marx believed that every aspect of society could be
characterizes as a thesis, whilst its contradictory other
characterized as an antithesis. Marx believed that by refining the
thesis and antithesis of something, a synthesis could be found.
Similarily Marx proposed that capitalism be the thesis, whilst...
... middle of paper ...
...ical Ideologies, Third Edition by Andrew Heywood – Palgrave
Macmillan
http://home.att.net/russianleaders
http://www.projectgcse.com
Socialist Party of Great Britain
Pinecrest School – Library Archives online
http://search.biography.com/print_record.pl?id=6048
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/1350/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Article in Pine Crest Library – www.pinecrest.com *
[2] Quote of Engels found in the website of The Socialist Party of
Great Britain
* I concentrated on Lenin and Stalin for the reasons that they are the
most known, and affiliate more directly to the question. Furthermore I
think that under exam conditions I would be most able to concentrate
on Lenin and Stalin rather than other Soviet leaders.
Karl Marx 's writing of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in 1848 has been documented by a vast number of academics as one of the most influential pieces of political texts written in the modern era. Its ideologically driven ideas formed the solid foundation of the Communist movement throughout the 20th century, offering a greater alternative for those who were rapidly becoming disillusioned and frustrated with the growing wealth and social divisions created by capitalism. A feeling not just felt in by a couple of individuals in one society, but a feeling that was spreading throughout various societies worldwide. As Toma highlights in his work, Marx felt that ‘capitalism would produce a crisis-ridden, polarized society destined to be taken over by
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.
The Enlightenment of the 18th century was an exciting period of history. For the first time since ancient Grecian times, reason and logic became center in the thoughts of most of elite society. The urge to discover and to understand replaced religion as the major motivational ideal of the age, and the upper class social scene all over Europe was alive with livid debate on these new ideas.
There are thousands of years of history that have taken place. History is not like art(less subjective), but there is still plenty of room for speculation, criticism, and debate among historians, professors, as well as average citizens. However, not all these moments are documented, or done successfully specifically. Some of these moments end up becoming movies, books, or even historical fiction novels, but what about those fundamental moments that aren’t readily documented? In the book The Birth of Modern Politics Lynn Hudson Parsons claims that the 1828 election was momentous in the history of both political history, as well as our nation. Parsons not only discusses the behind the scenes of the first public election of 1828, but the pivotal events in Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams’ lives leading up to the election as well. Parsons succeeds in proving her thesis that the 1828 election was crucial to American politics as we know it today, as well as provoking evidence from various sources with her own logic and opinions as well.
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 Constitution was made to be the code by which all Americans had to live by. It set up the laws that we, as Americans, were to live by in the United States. The law is the set of rules that we live by. The Constitution is the highest law. It belongs to the United States. It belongs to all Americans. The Constitution lists some key rights. Rights are things that all people have just because they are alive. By listing the rights, they are made special. They are made safe. The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights lists many rights of the people.
In politics as in political science and legal scholarship, the world sometimes seems to be divided into those who think that for the sake of efficiency as well as justice markets must be free from regulation by morals and those who believe that, considerations of efficiency notwithstanding, justice demands that morals govern markets. In his instructive and admirably balanced new book, Cass Sunstein contends that, for all concerned, this is a bad way for the world to be divided.
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.
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.
Will Kymlicka’s book, “Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction,” discusses various political philosophies including utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is made up many different aspects including different accounts. The account of utility that I will be discussing is the informed preference satisfaction. Like any part of philosophy, this account of utility has its strengths and weaknesses in practicality and plausibility. I believe that the informed preferences account is a practical attempt to ensure a person’s or society’s well-being is maximized in a well informed and rational way of decision making.
The Constitution is one of the most significant file and certificate in the United States, the constitution of United States of America was created by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the state of Philadelphia and in the year of 1787. The Constitution changed the life of people; furthermore, when the constitution was created, it provided different types of freedom for different people. The constitution of United States includes about twenty seven amendments, which the ten first amendments are most important, because they relate to basic freedom and equality of people. According to http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble; The preamble of constitution of United States says that “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” The constitution task is to try to defend and protect the people of United States; furthermore, it concludes different ages of people not a particular type of people. Actually, people of United States are free people intrusive Federal government doesn’t interfere in their life. The persons who wrote the constitution, tried to make a nation that a particular person doesn’t control all the affairs of the country; in addition, the European countries were absolutely monarchy which cause the people not decide and control everything. The United States doesn’t have queens or kings and no one is above the law. The United Stat...
What would the American government be like today if it was not for the mind and political theory of John Locke? Some historians and philosophers believe that without John Locke our government would only be a shadow of what it is today. Arguably, one of his most important political and philosophical works was his Two Treatises of Government. There he argues that the function of the state is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, primarily to protect the right to property. John Locke, in many eyes, can be viewed as one of the father’s of Democracy. He embraced many of ideas in his theories on the state of nature and the rise of political society today. In Locke’s political society, the government is founded up a social contract by which the individuals of the state make a "social contract" with the government, and enter into it freely, to ensure that their rights in the state of nature are protected. Taking that into consideration, many questions and problems arise concerning Locke’s claims. For example, we have to justify the legitimacy of the "social contract" and validate its benefits and shortcomings.
Norman Davies describes liberalism as "being developed along two parallel tracks, the political and the economic. Political liberalism focused on the essential concept of government by consent. In its most thoroughgoing form it embraced republicanism, though most liberals favored a popular, limited, and fair-minded monarch as a factor encouraging stability." (A History of Europe, p.802) At the core of liberalism was the idea of freedom of thought and expression. People were now not only able to think for themselves, but also express those same thoughts. Popular sovereignty was also a very strong tenet of liberalism. Popular sovereignty advocated that government derives its power from the people and sovereignty is never unlimited to anyone. Political liberalism centered on the ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, the natural rights of man, the freedom to own property, and that status is not a birthright but an extension of talent. Property also represented a very strong idea in the minds of many liberals. Davies concludes, "nineteenth-century liberals also gave great weight to property, which they saw as the principal source of responsible judgement and solid citizenship." (A History of Europe, p.802) However, property soon became defined as a natural right.
Explaining Political Philosophy Political philosophy, or political theory, as it is also known, is about human condition, or, what humans are like. There are roughly four main kinds of political philosophy around today-Libertarianism, Socialism, Liberalism and Communitarianism. Political theory is an attempt to understand people, what we are like as individuals, what society and the state are like, and how we as humans, the state and society all interact with one and other. A social contract theory is the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons. For some philosophers this contract is reality, whereas for others it is regarded as imaginary.
In Chapter One of “Theories and Methods in Political Science”, Sanders focuses on a central question of “why do people behave in the way they do?” In behavioral analysis, it is important to focus on observable behavior. Observable behavior is crucial because it centers in on why people do what they do, not what people think internally. Any explanation of this behavior is subject to empirical testing; meaning any actual experience is worth far more than a theory. Behaviorists have considered political participation (such as voting, protests, riots, and strikes), elite political behavior (a leaders view versus a leaders actions), collective behavior (special interest groups), and international relations (state actions).1 All these groups have specific experiences linked to them, making it easier to analyze the behavior. For example, behaviorists may look at the voting patterns among young adults across the country. By doing so, they will have a better representative statistic than a theory could have. Regarding elite political behavior, one may chose to look at what a leader stands for. Analyzing a President would start before they take office: seeing what the person says before they’re elected, and conclude at the end of a President’s term. What a behaviorist may notice is that the words did not match the actions. In the reading “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, the author states: “Actors do not have a "portfolio" of interests that they carry around independent of social context; instead, they define their interests in the process of defining situation.”2 What this means to me is that a leader doesn’t have a list of specific things they want to do or are going to do…instead, they mak...