These beliefs align with the philosopher Karl Marx, known as the father of communism who promoted an egalitarianism way of thinking. These actions would be opposed by conservatives as there would be a lack of motivation to improve certain products since everyone receives equal pay. This also causes the government to have overwhelming control over the lives of
Rough Draft Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But there is a significant difference between them; while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude (Tocqueville). The main difference between the two systems is their ideals, specially the fact that socialism is an economic system while democracy is a political ideology. Many say that what democracy offers are just lies and that what they offer doesn’t work at all, but democracy has a great advantage over socialism for three main things; it provides the freedom of choice, equal rights, and a fair voting system. With these reasons, and many other, democracy becomes one of the best systems for governing, going over socialism.
Marx saw capital and liberal democracies as the fundamental reasons for the low standards of living and the low social conditions of workers. Karl Marx in particular is especially concerned with the political assumptions behind these two ideologies. According to him, these two types of government should be replaced by communism, since communism would provide for a more equal and socially just society. Although this statement may seem unusual, since we tend to associate communism with Stalin and China, the type of communism implemented in these countries is different from the communism that Marx and Engels envisaged in their Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels’ vision of communism is based on the principle of equality among the people and freedom
Socialism is more liberal than Communism. People can elect parties to govern their socialist country, while in communism the state only has one authoritarian. Also, both have a view on capitalism differently. Socialism still thinks capitalism can exist in society but need restriction; on the other hand, in communist countries capitalism must be vanished. Lastly, Communism requires revolution, not
The thoughtful person is subsumed with rational procedures. He claimed that Marx's immiseration of workers is wrong as he didn't allow for improvement in their conditions. "Marx did not see justice and freedom are dialectical concepts ... the more freedom, the less justice, and the more justice, the less freedom. The critical theory which I concieved later is based on the idea that one cannot determine what is good, what a good, a free society would look like from within the society we now live in. We lack the means.
Polemarchus responds by saying, “that the men one believe to be good, one loves, while those he considers bad one hates.” This is the problem with Polemarchus’ view of justice. He could easily be wrong about who is “good” and who is “bad” and you will end up treating someone who has done nothing wrong unjustly. Dividing a country into classes where each person must be loyal to ones own class would never lead to true justice because the different classes would only be loyal to their particular class. The ruling class would benefit more from this because they are in fact the higher
Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver’s Travels, is fundamentally skeptical of philosopher John Locke’s views as expressed in his writing, The Second Treatise of Government. Locke holds the belief that when individuals are pursing self-interest within the realm of economics and politics that they are serving the common good regardless of intent. However, Swift disagrees and uses satire to express his hesitancy. The reason for Swift’s skepticism is that his purpose differs from Locke’s. Locke uses individualism to justify private property as a common good so that men may profit, whereas Swift depicts individualism as corrupting to human morality in order to further discredit modernity.
Nietzsche even pointed out that liberalism, like religion, can be used as a form of legitimation (Cristi, 2010). A modern liberal state is founded on “consent” of the people (ibid). The problem with this is that it cannot guarantee the compliance of every individual (i.e. if they do not feel obligated to obey the laws) and this would eventually lead the state to its downfall (ibid). Likewise, Weber argues that because of the democratic ideas brought in by the French Revolution, “people are reluctant to accept that anyone is entitled to rule except the people themselves” (Shaw, 2008).
Functionalism has been criticised for supporting the misplacement of power throughout the classes. Critiques have questioned the necessity of class stratification for productive purposes. This stratification cannot act as an incentive because inequality is inherited, not earned (Wakeling, 2008). In order for inequality to be actually functional to society then there would have to be true free mobility between the social classes which we know is not true. The functionalist’s perspective of division between classes has also been criticised for perpetuating the position of the privileged elite who already hold power, prestige and money (Lockwood, 1956).
In this essay we will go over why Nozick rejects Rawls’ idea and what Rawls’ response to this rejection would be. Rawls ' argument that natural talents should only be used if they can benefit others stems from his belief that people with such abilities are undeserving of them (seeing that they did not work to achieve them) and, therefore, they will only be useful if they use these talents for the oppressed. Mark R. Reiff explains this in his work, “Exploitation and Economic Justice in the Liberal Capitalist State”, where he says that Rawls believes