In the Authoritarian style of government on the other hand, has many benefits, advantages and like any other type of government, has its own disadvantages and weaknesses. I remember in our previous discussions, we talked about Hobbes’ state of nature which states that a person is naturally selfish and that without a government, there would be total chaos so in result, man agrees to be a part of a government. In this sense, man would agree to be under that government and would agree to be served. It is not assured that there would not be chaos if one joins a government but through this form of government, war would be lessened – and it could be render void. Under this type of government, there are benefits and advantages as well as restrictions.
Despite some criticisms towards capitalism, it is seen as the most successful economic strategy for a country compared to others such as socialism and communism, these successes can be highlighted by the economic development of Western countries and in which is soon becoming a global phenomenon. Capitalism has a negative geographical dimension, this is inequality. David Harvey writes in Spaces of Hope, 2000, that capitalism is “one national struggle between the classes” This highlighting that although capitalism aims to make individuals proposer, it is not a balanced concept at all (Harvey, 2000). This inequality is spatially manifested and therefore gives it a capitalism a geography. Capitalism’s economic inequality has led to a clear divide between urban and rural, this is evident in China.
Elimination of inequality among people and businesses would help enable the people of it to reach their greatest potential personally, and as one. Although some may think that capitalism is the best government , a true communism government would be the most
Comparison of Communism and Socialism Introduction: Communism and Socialism which are regarded as the two different shades of Marxism are often used inter-changeably. Both the systems are opposed to the capitalistic system and share some similarities as well as differences in their approaches. The theory of Communism developed by German philosopher Karl Marx, is both a political and an economic system that is based on the collective ownership of the production of goods. The word Communism has been originated from a Latin word meaning “common”. Communism rejects individual ownership of industry, and promotes the manufacture of goods in order to satisfy the basic needs of the economy and the people.
Marx similarly sees the system of capitalism as unsustainable, but he is less hopeful for its inevitable demise. He believes that capitalism is a race to the bottom, where the only time that the workers can improve their “material position” is when they sacrifice their “social position” instead, as the “social gulf that divides [them] from the capitalist has widened” (Marx 211). According to Marx, the working class would never be able to improve their situation without furthering the divide between the classes and putting them further under the reign of the wealthy. In his mind, the divide would eventually become so large that the working class would no longer be able to support the weight of the system, and the system would inevitably collapse in on itself. In this way, both Douglass and Marx see the unsustainable nature of their economic systems, but they differ in how they see the inevitable
In an aristocracy, Tocqueville explains, there are individuals who are influential and wealthy enough to more fully rely on themselves and resist oppression. In a democracy, however, this does not usually occur. Tocqueville believes that organizations, however, can take the place of the aristocratic in the sense that they are powerful enough to guard against despotism. If no individual is powerful enough to do so, groups of them can be (361-362). Accordingly, as free institutions collapse under individualism, the door opens to
This notion of equality appropriates the language of America’s founders, but it nevertheless strikes at the heart of the founders’ understanding of equality, which was based on equality of rights. For the founders understood that equality of outcome is impossible and undesirable, given the different abilities with which each person is born. Global inequality is getting worse. Inequality will not disappear overtime, and on the other hand it all depends on the balance of political power in the global economy. As long as a few wealthier countries have the power to set the rules to their own advantage, inequality will continue to worsen.
In democratic state we can choose the government, but there is no other reason why people could not be as free under a dictatorship as in a democracy. In addition it is important to set up dictatorship or socialism in economically underdeveloped countries, which are not ready for the democracy. Otherwise these countries will not grow and prosper. Those two forms of the government help to achieve social stability and do not create economic inequality. We also need to change the form of democracy in Europe and create something between democracy and socialism.
I In an ideal democracy, voters will vote for the politicians and policies that can bring the most benefit to themselves, while the rules of the society cares about how to maximize the social welfare as a whole. However, in reality, people find
Because true democracy disincentives career politicians and instead opt for whomevers ideas are best, finding one in the modern world is very rare. What is far more common is an electoral oligarchy, where people can raise themselves to power, but only after conforming to and joining the political aristocracy. In order to create and maintain a true democracy the three guidelines of, informed voters, checks and balances and term limits must be strictly enforced. Without any one of these policies, the state will wane. Members of leadership will always try to enhance their own power and states must be assembled in such a way as to limit such attempts.