So while Marx has his representation upon superstructure, Gramscis can be viewed in terms of civil society and the state. Stated in Gramcis piece “The state is not only the apparatus of the of government, but also the private apparatus of civil society(Gramsci, 233-234). However, because the upper class has control over everyone else, change is difficult. Domination works because it prevents the lower people from figuring out what is really going on the implement change. The capitalist state is made up of political society (through coercion) and civil society (through consent).
Emile Durkheim’s view of modern society is thought of as a high division of labour in which ‘ organic solidarity’ predominates. The roles and institutions act like the organs in our body, and are dependent on each other. When it comes to the state, for example, it regulates like the brain, achieving restitory justice and solidarity over the body. This ensures that social inequality is based primarily on merit. In the state of moral and dynamic density, individualism and rationality are able to rise above “collective consciousness” and religion.
In all the main point Theda Skocpol used for a social uprising is Marxism's class struggle. She goes on to say how the structure, class relations, international pressures are what brings up the need for a change. When these components aren't working together properly then there is a need for reform. Skocpol changed poltical science with her work “France, Russia, China A Structural Analysis of Social Revolution” and showed how social revolution strives for change in class structure and the state of society. Social revolution comes from the inconsitencies within our state and people that are oppressed want a change to benefit all people not just the elite that hold all power.
The function of ideology using Marx's perspective would be that continual reproduction of the means of production. This, in turn, ensures the continuous dominance of the ruling class. Weber's overarching question was “why do rational rules result in a double-bind? Verstehen or “interpretive understanding” is a method of empathy that relies on the sociologist's ability to subjectively understand the meanings and motives of th... ... middle of paper ... ...ling' in modern society, it is still important to study Weber. His thinking about the nature of developments like rationalizations in the modern Western world led to the development of critical theory, which remains a vital philosophical tradition in normative discipline of social and political philosophy.
Conflict theory is a theory that claims society is in a state of everlasting conflict due to competition for limited resources. Conflict theory holds that social order is preserved by domination and authority, rather than harmony and conformity. According to conflict theory, those with fortune and power try to hold on to it by any means possible, primarily by suppressing the underprivileged and powerless. Conflict theory also credits most of the fundamental developments in human history, such as democracy and civil rights, to attempt to control the common people rather than to a desire for social order. Conflict theory proposes that each individual or group struggles to attain the maximum benefit.
This model consist of thoughts and ideas, not the conditions and material forces. After the Cold War realism’s approach to the security was challenged. These assumptions argue that, the world is shaped socially, thank to unlimited feelings and interactions of all structures, and factors are automatically determined; as evenly factors such as the ideas, norms and views are fundamental for politics to function. What distinguishes constructivism and realism is the approach to safety. For realists security is the key and that it is developed by political elites and due to Wendt, it is self-interest actions.
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.
Political correctness, as applied in today’s society, seeks to control freedom of speech and poses a true danger to a free society. The First Amendment’s focus is the protection of our right to express our thoughts through speech, whether written or verbal. By PC’s intrinsic infringement on these rights, it has become a subtle tool used for dismantling freedom of speech and manipulating the flow of information to the masses. The similarities between political correctness and Marxism are nearly endless. Marxism bred political correctness; therefore, its roots lie in a version of Marxist ideology, derived from the Frankfurt School, which sees culture, rather than the economy, as the site of class struggle.
Additionally, I postulate that the theories of Weber and Simmel reveal the factors impeding the formation of class consciousness among members of the proletariat. While Marxist ideology dismisses the individual’s role in society and contends that the economic superstructure governs everything, Weber and Simmel each present a more nuanced interpretation of the social world. The work of these two theorists acknowledges individual agency and examines forces outside of the economy that impact individuals. In the following paper, I discuss how the social forces described by Weber and Simmel complicate Marx’s conception of the class structure. Moreover, I contend that the theories of Weber and Simmel illustrate how distinctions and divisions can arise within Marx’s broadly defined social classes.
This is reflected in the Marxist belief that the key positions in government and administration are held by people from relatively privileged backgrounds or those who have an underlying allegiance to ‘the establishment’ and the status quo. More importantly, in the context of social policy, the welfare state is believed by implication, to be a conspiracy against the working class where the shape and nature of the welfare state is deliberately contrived to accord with the economic requirements of capital. It has been argued by Taylor (2007) that what Marxists say about the capitalist state, is of relevance and importance in discussing the politics of welfare, providing an interesting critique of the welfare policies of the political centre and highlighting at least some of the problems that can be encountered if we rely too heavily on the capitalist state. Marxists doubt whether the long term welfare of society can be improved through implementing social policies alone, where such policies merely extend the lifespan of the capitalist system. I will explain the ways in which Marxist theory may be deemed relevant in providing a critique of the politics of welfare, using the benefits system as an example of an area of social