Many other scholars have agreed or attempted to demystify each individual theory. This essay shall confer as to each separate theory of the state as a relation. It shall furthermore discuss the limitations of each theory, while examining contributions from other theorists and scholars in the field of anthropology and sociology. According to Marx, societies consist of two structures: super and infra. The latter consists of the base structures needed for the said societies production and operation; structures such as transport, energy and healthcare are part of the infrastructure.
Conflict theories, such as Marxism and feminism focus on power struggles and differences, for example, class conflict, and for the most part question historical ideologies. It is a macro level critique and study of society (Collins, 1971). Many sociologists and thinkers have defined the class in different ways. Marx defined class in terms of the political and economic structures of power, he believed that power came directly from economic and political conditions and the people with power usually exploit the ones without power. He divided society into three classes the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat (Grant, 2001).
Sociology can be defined as the systematic study of social behaviour and human groups. It mainly focuses on the influence of social relationships on people’s attitudes and behaviour and on how societies are established and how the change overtime . A popular debate in the foundation of the discipline has been whether it should be treated as natural science or as a social science. The issue led to the division of sociologists. Three major theoretical perspectives can be identified at the foundation of sociology.
These are Macrosociology (Macro) and Microsociology (Micro). Macro sociology focus upon the social system while looking at society as a whole. It looks at how interactions within different types of social institutions, structures, economic system, and cultures impact upon the behaviour of individuals within society. Macro perspective can be divided into two focus areas, Conflict theory and Consensus theory which in turn allowed perspectives such as Functionalism and Marxism to explore how society changes and develops (Giddens and Sutton,
The concept that is human nature is one of the central themes of Marx’s works. It has been featured consistently in many of his pieces, although they seem to somewhat contradict one another at first glance and comparison. This essay will first attempt to expound on his views of human nature whilst concurrently illustrating how it fits into the larger scheme that is his political and economic philosophy – that is, Marxism, socialism, and communism. Then, it will explore the common rebuttals on his view of human nature and how it is inconsistent with the aforementioned philosophies before ending off with the possible responses Marx would give to counter such criticisms. To understand the intricacies of Marx’s political and economic philosophy, we must first comprehend the foundation on which this philosophy is built on – one of which is human nature, or ‘human essence’.
In their analyses of history, both Tocqueville and Marx offer uniquely distinct philosophies. This essay attempts to compare Marx and Tocqueville’s theories of History, tracking each theory’s underlying reasons for progression of history, history’s different stages and its handling of the issue of revolutions. I will begin by drawing out the definitive distinction between Tocqueville and Marx with respect to what is the driving force moving history. I will then proceed to argue why despite this distinction, Tocqueville and Marx are not diametrically opposite and how in fact they share the same underlying principles on the progressing of history despite ascribing it to different factors. Both Tocqueville and Marx operate within the stadial notion of history, viewing society as progressing through a series of distinctive stages of civilization.
Through identifying, defining, and understanding the key concepts of Marxism, the preconditions and contradictions of a capitalist society become more prominent. The contradictions of a capitalist society will be introduced through identifying and defining; radical change by societal transformation exploitation, conflict between different social groups (the bourgeoisie and proletariat), and exploitation. The two contradictions “exploitation” and “conflict between social groups” can be explained complimentary to one another as a result of being closely related. Key concepts such as; historical materialism, means of production, class consciousness, superstructure, and alienation will be referred to in order to aid the further understanding of Marxism, which in turn will address the preconditions of a capitalist society. The preconditions of capitalism can be understood as the requirements for Marxism - what formulates the views of Marxism – due to Marx working hard to create a theory for the capitalist economy.
At that very period, the republican government, headed by various factions within the parliament, had proven itself weak to the sudden putsch made by one government party. Social Democrats, the Conservative parties, ultra-nationalists – all of them hindered the already prostate and humiliated government. In our essay, we will try to answer the following question: what was Blanqui’s relevance with regards to Benjamin’s socialist philosophy? For starters, Walter Benjamin’s body of work regarding Marxist thought was not completely orthodox by many standards, and yet wasn’t also in line with contemporary western European Marxist thought. At that time, socialism had brewed into numerous splinter groups – Western European Marxist traditions had begun to split off from mainline Marxist theories.
The debate about the amount of social forces and individual, psychological forces has continued for a long time and might be said that is still present in the contemporary sociology (Gane, 1988). Durkheim practically demonstrated his theoretically introduced method in his book Suicide which is still topical for social scientists who study suicide today (Taylor, 1982). In order