Karl Marx (1818-1883) considered himself not to be a sociologist but a political activist. However, many would disagree and in the view of Hughes (1986), he was ‘both – and a philosopher, historian, economist, and a political scientist as well.’ Much of the work of Marx was political and economic but his main focus was on class conflict and how this led to the rise of capitalism. While nowadays, when people hear the word “communism”, they think of the dictatorial rule of Stalin and the horrific stories of life in a communist state such as the Soviet Union, it is important not to accuse Marx of the deeds carried out in his name. A Marxist sociologist is a materialist and a sociologist that follows the ideas of Marx. Marx’s main concern was that of capitalism and class conflict.
In Karl Marx’s 1848 political work The Communist Manifesto, he outlines the problems he observes in existing economic, political, and social structures while also expressing a desire to destroy those structures. Marx’s writing places heavy emphasis on class barriers in particular, exploring the discrepancies and class antagonisms between the “proletariat” laborer class and the “bourgeoisie” ruling class. The manifesto proceeds to provide an alternative to these existing sociopolitical class structures: “an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” (Marx 244) The problem with this proposed structural goal is not the fundamental idea of eliminating class antagonisms, but rather that
Communism aims to pursue international domination which is what Stalin tried to do by with the Soviet Union. However, fascist leaders have interest of those only having to do with their nation. A communist society have no social classes, and this is why private ownership of property, and land are frowned upon. On the contrary, fascism is very much class based, which was demonstrated by Hitler and his view on race superiority. These goals might seem different, but the methods used to achieve these goals are really similar.
A man by the name Yegor Letov once said “I am a communist. Communism is when a person overcomes his personal self and turns into more than just 'me'.” (Yegor Letov Quotes). Mr. Letov believed in a society based on communism, which would create similarity between each member of this society. Any choices made would no longer be about ‘yourself’ as he said, but instead would be replaced with the concept to always think as ‘we’. In the book Anthem, the society uses this same concept of ‘we’, but more to an extreme.
As the article continues, Kennan emphasises the assumed unity, discipline and patience within the Soviet Union. Kennan was under the impression that dictatorship could only temporarily compel a nation and that Soviet conduct was responsible for an exhausted and unconvinced population. Concentration of industrialisation led to an uneven expansion of communism, according to Kennan, and the economy suffered, as parts of the Soviet remained undeveloped. Kennan anticipated force of authority to be a detrimental to society. Lack of variation in the Communist Party members is criticised, it is maintained that differentiation in people and ideas is critical to the success of a nation.
The worldwide spread of capitalism led to powerful movements of resistance and revolution. Capitalism created an international working class which Marx believed would revolt against the international capitalist class to form a stateless, classless communist society. The revolt of workers and peasants in countries suffering from imperialism and bourgeois oppression took the form of ‘socialist patriotism’ — a form of patriotism that differed from bourgeois nationalism . The relatively imprecise positions taken up by Marx and Engels on the national question fostered a series of debates and discussions on the topic, making it crucial for socialists to understand how to address nationalism and the various struggles for national liberation. This paper aims to review the extent to which Marx’s theory of
Capitalism began by no accident, it was the eventual result of natural trade relationships between different cultures, but it has one major flaw according to socialists and communists. The plague of capitalism is its tendency to create inequality between classes of workers and employers. Socialism and communism are both proposed solutions to the issues of wage and property inequality. These ideologies address the relationship between workers, employers, and the state in a new light. Socialism and communism are extremely similar but have a few fundamental differences.
The idea of socialism and communism may be slightly unrealistic and challenging to implement but in a utopian society, Marx’s view of the political structure is ideal. Arendt argues that there is no place for poverty in politics but Marx makes the point that poverty must be eliminated first so that politics can flourish. The only way to eliminate poverty is through the political system and the overthrow of the elite. As long as there is economic oppression, freedom is not attainable for every citizen. The separation of economics and freedom is unrealistic because money controls the actions of the people.
This essay will compare and contrast the aspirations and opinions of the Marxist and feminist ideologies, both of which continue to have a meaningful impact upon modern politics. At its simplest Marxism is a political ideology which aims to build from the critical analysis of the philosopher Karl Marx. The Marxist view of capitalism is that through the operation of the economy, the masses (workers) are exploited by the ruling class (capitalists) via profit, which is seen as theft. A strong proponent of this stance was the philosopher Friedrich Engels who stated, “all past history was the history of class struggles; that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and of exchange.” (Engles, 1877), developed
The followers of Karl Marx believe in the theory which suggest that communism is the final period of evolution of human socioeconomic relations. Thus, Marx criticized free market economy as being ungoverned and strongly influenced by laws of supply and demand, which considered to not allow people to take control of individual and collective destines (Veblen). As a solution, Marxism ideology offers state capitalism- where the government controls the economy like a huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest in production (Dunayevskaya).State monopoly capitalism was exactly the case in Soviet Union, influenced by Marxism, even though Marxist revolutionary politician argues that the possibility in of exploitative society cannot be considered; since the ownership of the means of production developed historically, through social
Rhetorical Analysis of Communism: A History By Richard Pipes Communism was originally a social theory of a completely unified and harmonious society (3). Private property and class inequality was said to be the root of all evil, so by removing those from society, a government could encourage peace on a national, and later a global scale. Richard Pipes examines the roots of Communism in his book, Communism: A History, and then proceeds to methodically express the failure and decay that comes with it. Pipes argues that Communism is corrupt by appealing to his scholarly audience through a cause-and-effect logos appeal, an ethos appeal that plays on the audience’s appreciation of professionalism, and a pathos appeal built on a foundation of statistical deaths. In many cases, Richard Pipes can be found taking advantage of the Ethos appeal to convince his audience of his intellect and assure them that he has reliable information.
Mao wanted to add his own twist to communism by introducing mass mobilization of the labor force with the goal of improving industrial and agricultural production (BBC). This had the exact opposite effect because it created a decline of output and, therefore, led to poor harvests and starvation (BBC). His careless dictatorship resulted from steering away from the true objective of communism. Marx’s idea of communism was meant to be positive by expressing concerns for the working classes, yet practice of it became oppressive under the leadership of early communist leaders such Stalin and Mao
Was Roosevelt really guilty of compromising American capitalism with elements of socialism, or was it a temporary measure to deal with an economic crisis, and in fact save capitalism? The answer to the question is yes, President F.D Roosevelt had to compromise. His plans and actions might have seemed that he was for socialism, but it was rather a temporary measure. He made the decision, as the president, to compromise American Capitalism with elements of socialism for the time being as there were more options and different ways of going about it in socialist setting than there was with capitalism. He made this decision also because he knew that if he were to change his mind-set from a capitalist to a socialist one there would be more ways of getting the country back to what it used to be even though many people would not agree.