Category: Karl Marx

Webers Theory

Certain aspects of the state were highlighted in Webers Politics as a Vocation and other writings. Nevertheless, he did not specifically specify the term element, which people do for clarification of discourse. In reality, the ingredients are the most crucial portions of his concept. A modern state is a framework of government and legislation that is customized by state and law and advises the management boards coordinated action (Weber, 2021, p. 1). The executive is controlled by statutory provision similarly and asserts legislative power over association members, those who essentially relate to the organization by birth but within a larger spectrum overall constantly taking the position in the region over which it practices supremacy. Max Weber argued that the study of social acts should be the primary emphasis of sociology. Social action, according to Weber, was performed by an individual and to which a person assigned significance (Weber, 2021, p. 2). As a result, an action that a person does not think about cannot be considered a social behavior.

Weber felt more at ease exploring actual problems than handling abstract topics under the umbrella phrase the social question. For example, in the 1890s, he was a member of a commission formed to investigate the stock exchange and examine the influence of trade speculation on the socioeconomic issues of the working classes. In many ways, Weber tackled the social problem without resolving it directly. Webers stylistic characteristic was polemical writing. When he discovered an error or an inconsistency in another writers intent, he would frequently produce an essay or a booklet to present another viewpoint. Studying the mechanisms of rationalism, secularization, and disenchantment was Webers primary intellectual preoccupation. He contended that such dynamics are the product of a different way of thinking about the environment and are linked to the growth of capitalism and modernism.

Weber maintained that austere Protestantism in the Western world had a chosen affinity with capitalism, bureaucracies, and the logical and reasonable nation-state. Weber intended something less direct than causation but more explicit than association when he said elective affinities. In other words, while Weber did not suggest that religion caused economic development, he did discover that austere Protestantism and contemporary capitalism frequently coexisted in civilizations. Furthermore, Weber noted that both austere Protestantism and capitalism fostered cultural behaviors that complemented one another. He never argued that religion was the exclusive, simple, and isolated source of capitalisms growth in the West.

Max Webers viewpoint appears to be the most relevant to todays challenges since it explains why we react the way we do to those difficulties. In the United States, for instance, there is a large lot of economic disparity. According to Weber, our attitude to inequality is determined by the meaning we assign to it. Many current sociologists regard Weber as a complement to Marx, studying problems that Marx considered less essential, giving a means of thinking about the person within a structural framework, and outlining a sociological technique.

Marxs Theory

Marx, one of the principle architects of modern social science, believed that history was made of up stages driven by class conflict. According to Marx, the manner society is structured on the existing mode of subsistence and who controls them. The accumulation of Capital includes items like land and natural resources that are required to manufacture material commodities (Marx, 2020, p. 11). They also contain technology, such as instruments or equipment, which humans employ to make things. As technology evolves, the methods of production in any given civilization may alter. Simple tools like a shovel and hoe might have been considered instruments of production in medieval civilization. Microchips and robots are examples of modern technology used in manufacturing today.

Throughout history, various communities have dominated the factors of production at various times. Feudal lords held the land and instruments used for production during feudal times. Many of the modes of subsistence are now owned by huge businesses. Various states have different production relations or social interactions that individuals must enter into when they acquire and employ the forces of production. Labor issues have taken many forms throughout history, with employees entering into a contract with an employer to offer labor in exchange for payment.

Marx was more concerned with describing how society evolved from one stage to the next than explaining the stable organization of any specific historical phase. Marx felt that every stages economic inequality would inevitably lead to class struggle and, finally, the closure of that phase and the start of another. Feudalism came to a close with the class war between serfdom and landlords, ushering in a new era, capitalism.

Marxs work was primarily concerned with understanding the fundamental weaknesses of capitalism and forecasting its inevitable demise and transformation to socialism. Marx contended that capitalism was inherently fragile and prone to repeated crises. Marx argued that as capitalism went through growth cycles, collapse, and more growth, increasingly catastrophic crises would punctuate economic expansion. Furthermore, he felt that this mechanism would enrich and strengthen the capitalist class in the long run while impoverishing the poorer working class, whom he described as the proletariat.

The proletariat would eventually become politically aware, realizing that their seeming personal issues were caused by a market structure that harmed all those who did not own the productive resources. Marx thought that once the proletariat achieved class consciousness, they would emerge and take the factor of production, overturning the capitalist mode of production and ushering in a socialist system. Marx thought that the socialist society founded after the proletariat upheaval would promote social connections that benefited everyone equitably, repeal extractive capitalists, end their unique control of the means of manufacturing, and introduce a production system less susceptible to recurring catastrophes (Marx, 2020, p. 9). Given capitalisms fundamental design deficiencies and the likelihood of class strife, Marx saw this ultimate rebellion as unavoidable.

References

Marx, K. (2020). The commodity. In Capital (1st ed., pp. 140). Book on Demand Ltd.

Weber, G. M. H. H. (2021). Politics as a vocation. Isha Books.

Introduction

It is necessary to mention that the influence of the capitalist market economy on impoverished working people is the topic that has been actively discussed over the last few years. Karl Marx and Adam Smith are two prominent figures whose works are praised and commonly studied. A contrast between their ideas is quite significant, and it can be explained by the fact that they valued different aspects and the way they perceived the working class also varied. It would be reasonable to examine both works to determine which argument is more reasonable.

Discussion

Adam Smith has acknowledged the fact that inequality caused by the capitalist market economy is enormous. He was concerned about the fact that wealthy people could not contribute to society, and it could have an impact on the working class. Smith states that no society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (65 ch. 8). On the other hand, he suggests that people are too focused on the riches of others, and it is one of their primary problems.

He understood that impoverished individuals would not be satisfied when the disparity of wages increases, and it could lead to complications. The proposed state of equilibrium could ensure that the balance is rational, and every individual will have an opportunity to earn the necessary goods. He believed that the capitalist market is beneficial to impoverished people because they will have opportunities to become wealthy in the future.

He suggested that freedom related to personal development should be viewed as incredibly valuable. However, it is possible to argue with this position. The problem is that individuals born in impoverished families live in an environment that does not support education. Moreover, one may not be able to attend college because of the situation at home. It is true that the smartest students will be able to receive scholarships, but they also will have to deal with numerous problems and barriers.

One of the aspects that need to be discussed is that Adam Smith did not suggest that working people should focus on selfishness and maximizations of profits. He argued that it would be possible to become relatively wealthy if one is motivated and determined. The suggestion that the introduction of new technologies has an impact on the psyche of a person is rather interesting. Smith believed that individuals that produce goods would be dehumanized in the long-term.

However, it is paramount to note that the statement is questionable. Individuals appreciate the devices that make their work much easier, and the connection with the products is quite exaggerated. Moreover, he argued that companies may not reduce the reward for work significantly because employees would move to the competitors, and stated that the situation could regulate itself because of the way the market works.

Marx believed that the working class would be exploited under the capitalist market economy. He suggested that they would have all the right to disagree with the situation because they are responsible for the production of valuable goods, and their contribution to the economy is undervalued. Moreover, philosophers stated that such a system could lead to a social revolution. He has predicted that the disparity in income would continue to rise, and it would leave many individuals without the necessary resources. Economic crises associated with this system also should be highlighted, and the economist suggested that they would hurt working people the most.

Marx claimed that all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over and exploitation of, the producers (45 ch. 25). In other words, he believed that it leads to the introduction of differences between the classes, and relations are also affected dramatically. Adam Smith has criticized the working-class and argued that such individuals cannot participate in rational conversations because their knowledge is limited.

On the other hand, Marx has focused on different aspects and believed that the production of goods is of utmost importance. He argued that the lack of control from the side of the government could lead to the introduction of numerous complications related to labor and the economy. He was too worried about the fact that firms could get much more powerful in the future, and they will be able to take advantage of the working class.

Also, another intriguing aspect that needs to be discussed is that it is suggested that laborers are closely connected to the capital. An increase of wealth at one side leads to starvation and impoverishment at the other, and the philosopher believes that such treatment of people that produce most of the goods is not justified. The arguments are quite comprehensive because several contradictions in the structure of this economic system are present, and it leads to class conflicts. Impoverished workers are disadvantaged in this case because they lack the control of the situation. The alienation theory that the economist proposes is quite similar to the ideas suggested by Smith.

However, he made the same mistake in this case and did not consider the fact that technologies could be improved in the future, and the outcome of the machine age is going to be beneficial. Another weakness is that many of his arguments are based on assumptions.

It is possible to identify a particular connection between modern society and the ideas suggested by Marx. It is quite evident that humanity has the necessary resources to provide high-quality healthcare and housing to every individual. However, the distribution of wealth is not proportional, and funds are not utilized efficiently. It can be seen that impoverished individuals all over the world voice their opinions about the whole situation, and they are given a platform to speak about such issues. On the other hand, it is possible to argue that a social revolution is not likely to happen at this point. Factory workers became much more educated because they are provided with a broad range of benefits and opportunities for training. The introduction of new technologies also played a crucial role because it makes most of the operations much easier.

The biggest problem at the moment is that Marx was too focused on the labor process and undervalued other aspects that are crucial for every individual.

Adam Smiths stance on the influence of the capitalist market economy seems much more appropriate because he has recognized that it would lead to enormous benefits in the long-term. On the other hand, Marx has warned other scholars about the dissimilarity in earnings associated with this system, and the argument is justified. However, it is possible to argue with his stance on the influence of companies.

Employers have to consider the needs of workers most of the time, and cannot set wages that are unreasonably low. The fact that the government plays a role in the capitalist market needs to be discussed. It helps to address some of the weaknesses that the approach has because numerous policies that help working people are introduced. Moreover, this also supports the argument that the system is beneficial to impoverished people because most of the expenses are covered via taxation, and wealthy individuals help to generate the funds.

Marxs analysis can be perceived as less relevant nowadays because the situation has changed dramatically over the years. Some of the comments or statements by Adam Smith regarding impoverished people can be viewed as inappropriate, but he was right that the role of education should not be overlooked, and it is one of the best systems that would help to increase their skills.

Conclusion

In summary, it is possible to state that the ideas suggested by both these authors are quite reasonable and may be applied to modern societies. However, Adam Smiths arguments are much closer to reality. One of the reasons he was able to predict the current situation is that he has acknowledged the value of knowledge and the impact that it has on all the societies. Marxs perspective on the way the system affects working people was influenced by his other beliefs.

The biggest problem is that he was too focused on the direct socioeconomic factors related to the capitalist market, and has overlooked the associated benefits that it offers. Overall, it is quite evident that Smiths opinion on this subject matter is much more appropriate. However, it is possible to improve the current system, and all the necessary resources are available.

Works Cited

Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1, New York, NY: International Publishers, 1887. Print.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, South London, UK: W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1776. Print.

Karl Heinrich Marx was born on May 5, 1818 in Trier’s comfortable middle-class home on the Moselle river in Germany. In one of the sites that I found, it mentioned that, “when he was 17 years old, he attended the University of Bonn, where he also enrolled in the faculty of law” (Karl Marx 1818-1833). He was engaged to Jenny Fon Westfer, who was a famous member of the Trier community, the daughter of Von Westfalen, and was responsible for the interesting Marx of romanticism and the politics of San Simonia. The following year, Marx’s father sent him to the more serious Berlin University, where he stayed for four years giving up his then Hegeloranianism in Berlin. Karl Heinrich Marx was the oldest boy of nine children. His father, Heinrich, was a successful lawyer, a man dedicated to the enlightenment of Kant and Voltaire, involved in the incitement to the Prussian Constitution. His mother, Henrietta Press burg, was born in the Netherlands. The parents were Jews and descendants for a long team of rabies. He was baptized at the age of six. His influence on religion at a young age was less than criticism of enlightenment, but his Jewish background may prejudice his role in religion in society with prejudice and exposed to discrimination (Karl Marx 1818-1833). I will be discussing Karl Marx’s background, his work, and philosophies.

Karl Marx’s work offers a critical, effective evaluate of innovation on a few fronts. He is best known for his enthusiastic assault on capitalism, but he too presents us with genuine logical and social contentions. The reader ought to consider, in any case, whether any of his composing can be examined but within the light of his communicated progressive reason. Marx’s work was generally isolated into two periods: the more philosophical, visionary, early Marx; and the more develop, logical, and realist Marx. Despite this common part, in any case, Marx falters between a center on the change of awareness, and a request on the supremacy of fabric conditions for the arrangement of awareness. Central to any translation of Marx or Marxism may be a treatment of this pressure. This pressure can be restated as a concern with the perpetual issue of the connection of hypothesis to practice. Marx claimed that reasoning is based on its progressive and down to earth character (Great Thinkers Karl Marx).

Another important factor was how some people felt about Marx’s theories. In the website, “Karl Marx; Marxism’s Final Utter failure,” it states that, “Karl Marx was especially concerned with how people relate to that most fundamental resource of all us, the power of our own labor” (Karl Marx 1818-1833). For Marx, this was the normal capacity for a physical action, but it was personally tied to the human intellect and to human creative ability. Marx composed broadly around this in terms of the issue of ‘estrangement.’ The article mentioned that, “Marx started with a Hegelian idea of distance but created a more realist conception of this” (Karl Marx 1818-1833). Marx determined this misfortune in terms of ‘commodity fetishism’ in which case the things that individuals deliver, commodities, show up to have a life and development of their possess to which people and their behavior only adjust. This masks the truth that the trade and circulation of commodities truly are the item and reflection of social connections among individuals (Karl Marx 1818-1833).

“What is a fair society?” is quite an extensive question that interprets our opinions through an ideological filter. For the reason that ever since Aristotle a famous Greek philosopher, there has been a sense of accordance that every society especially the one we currently live in should always aim for fairness and equality. There is less of an agreement about how these terms should be accumulated or what they mean, which in all fairness is understandable because people have different personalities, different upbringings and different livelihoods. However, if equality and fairness get properly defined it could mathematically help us measure their extent accurately and allow us to establish whether society really upholds them.

In my opinion equality and fairness if taken literally can be misleading goals for society. The obvious issue with equality is that people are unequal themselves and what is needed for more equal society is a way to establish if a certain aspect of society should infact be enforced as equal by law above all of its members. A suggestion on how to decide which assets to equalise was proposed by a American philosopher John Rawls. John Rawls believed that if a group of people were to design a new society from the start without knowing beforehand what their positions would be( without knowing if they were going to be beautiful, rich, clever, popular or well-connected, etc), they would decide that at least some assets and attributes of society such as opportunities, laws, and freedom should be the same for every single person. I believe they would do this because they would want to increase their chances of being satisfied and happy despite their unspecified circumstances.

In the circumstances of individuals not knowing their own or each others positions in society John Rawls considers them to be under a veil of ignorance. This imaginary situation on where people agree on how society’s assets should be distributed is called the original position. Even Though this considerable situation can never actually happen in a society, John argued that his idea could shed light on what actual laws should be, because it could predict what people want to be equal in society. In fact if assuming that every single person in society is rational there could be an option that would maximise everyone’s chances of fulfilment and happiness.

When it comes to a fair society John Rawls original position helps investigate how assets might be best shared within people for a fair society. When it comes to distributing assets one must know that happiness and wealth are not among things anyone would agree to share, which is why egalitarianism a doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities, is a way to allocate society’s assets among its members, which is collectively known as principles of distributive justice. This instances allows us to to make society fair by defining equality and fairness because a fair society refers to any place where a principle of distributive justice has been agreed and later enforced. Although philosophers such as John Rawls tend to argue over allocating assets like wealth since it is unfair by benefiting people who dont deserve it. However I believe and they as well do that assets such as voting rights, freedom, legal rights, happiness and the opportunity to earn wealth is what helps to make a fair society.

In conclusion it is clear that what a fair society should look like depends on who we are as people, however I do believe that we need an undisputed fair society because there are quite a lot of social issues such as the rich and poor. There should be numerous ways to solves these issues and allocating a fair society is a better way to make things better. I hope in the future a fair society that everyone can agree on can happen, which can make the society better.

Freedom for a person can on one hand be easy to define while on the other hand be hard to explain especially in the society we currently live in. People consider freedom to have different meanings,for example some might believe freedom is being able to do whatever they want, while others might want freedom from laws and rules that have been put in place my states and cultures. However according to John Locke an english philosopher and physician the state of nature is being free from an higher power in other words people are not under the will of others but only the law of nature for their rule. Locke believes the nature of freedom and freedom of will have played an enormous role in moral psychology and the philosophy of action. In discussing about freedom for citizens in society locke offers different accounts of forerance and action, freedom and of will and willing. These positions are what lead John Locke to dismiss the question of freedom for citizens but also raised new questions, for example whether we are free in respect of willing and whether we are free to will what we will.

John Locke also believes that In a political society freedom is being not under law making power but only if its established by consent in the commonwealth. According to him people are free from the dominion of legal restraint or any will apart from that enacted by their own law making power according to the trust put in. in fact freedom is constrained by laws in both political societies and the state of nature. Freedom of nature should not be under restraints but the law of nature and the freedom of people that is under the government should not also be under any restraints apart from rules that is needed to live by in society and made by law making power.

John Locke also believed that to fully understand political power correctly and derive it from its original we have to consider what people are natural in, which is a state with perfect freedom in order to order their actions and dispose of their possessions with bounds of the law of nature. Although Locke believes this it doesn’t mean that he is against governments ruling society but he believe that if they are going to have power it should be decided by majority of the people. In Locke’s mind freedom freedom should always be constrained by laws that is equal to everyone in society even though it sometimes prohibits acts. These acts can most of the time destroy communities or interfere with people’s freedom.

A dream society is very easy to imagine because you just think the things you would want in a society. However a dreams society can also be the things your would want in society such as violence, fear, power and etc. These different aspects are what play a huge role in society especially in famous countries such as the United States, North Korea, Russia and ect. My dream society would have no fear, no violence, no death, no disease, no destruction but just peace and harmony, compassion and love. A society where everyone is treated equally, share mutual respect, are kind towards one another and where there is true justice and righteousness. Even Though my hopes of a dream society seems like a fantasy somedays I believe it helps to think about such dreams to help us through the harsh times in life and just escape daily burdens for a while. While these are my dreams about how a society could became other people have other goals and ideals.

Plato a Greek philosopher wrote a book called “ The Republic” where he explains his dreams and goals of an ideal society. Plato believe that women and men should have the same positions and education in society. He described an ideal society similar to mine such as where everyone lives without fear and violence nor material possession. During his time which was during 400 BC their political life was too rowdy and that no one would be able to live a harmonious life with that type of democracy. In his ideal society plato has three classes the guardians, the Auxiliaries and the masses. The guardians had political power because they were known as wise and for the reason that plato believed that a good society can only exist if philosophy and political power conjoin. The Auxiliaries would be the military and protectors of society, they also have to be courageous and gifted. The masses are those who are not in the upper class in other words everyone else.

Another philosopher Karl Marx also has a theory of an ideal society that can be compared to both mine and Plato’s dream community. Karl Marx ideal society has two main social classes the bourgeoisie (the capitalists) and the proletariat (the workers). Karl sees proletariats as selling their labour in order to get paid and the bourgeoisie own the means of production. Marx also believes that an ideal society is connected to class conflict because he traced the history of humankind in the ways of how the economy worked and the roles of classes within the economy. Marxist ideal theory helps provide a solution to both issues of freedom and class conflict within his theory of communism and critiques of capitalism. This is what Karl Marx considered to be an ideal society.

Sociology is the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships. Sociologists study society and social behavior by examining the groups, cultures, organizations, social institutions, and processes that develop when people interact and work together. One historical famous sociologist was Karl Marx, he contributed to the studies of sociology. I will discuss who Karl Marx was, his birth location and nurtured, educational background, sociological contributions, and I will assess his work and ideas for my audience to be informative of Karl Marx.

Karl Heinrich Marx was born on May 5, 1818 in Brückengasse 644 in Trier, a town part of the Kingdom of Prussia’s of the Lower Rhine. Karl Marx was one of the nine children born to Heinrich and Henrietta Marx. His father was a successful lawyer, even though both of his parents were Jewish with rabbinical ancestry. Karl’s father converted to Christianity in 1816 at the age of thirty-five. The reason behind this was likely a professional compromise in response to an 1815 law banning jews from high society. When Karl was six, he was baptized along with the other children. Karl was baptized a lutheran, rather than a Catholic which was the predominant faith in Trier. Although as a child Karl was influenced less by religion than by the critical, his Jewish background exposed him to prejudice and discrimination that may have led him to question the role of religion in society and devote his desire for social change.

Marx was educated at home until he was twelve, he spent five years; from 1830 to 1835 at the Jesuit high school in Trier. In October of 1835, Marx began studying at the University of Bonn. In Marx’s two semesters there, he was imprisoned for drunkeness and disturbing the peace. At the end of the year, Marx’s father insisted he enrolled in the more serious university of Berlin. In Berlin, he studied law and philosophy. Marx joined a society called the Doctor Club, whose members were determinedly involved in the new literary and philosophical movement. While in school, Marx found a woman who he was secretly engaged to Jenny von Westphalen. Karl later received his doctorate from the University of Jena in 1841, but his radical politics prevented him from a teaching position.

Marx began to work as a journalist and in 1842, he became the editor Rheinische Zeitung, a liberal newspaper in Cologne. Marx resigned on March 18th, after three months he married Jenny von Westphalen, and in October they moved to Paris. There, along with Arnold Ruge, Marx founded a political journal titled Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (German-French Annals). Only a single issue was published before philosophical differences between Marx and Ruge resulted in its demise, but in August of 1844, the journal brought Marx together with a contributor, Friedrich Engels, who would become his collaborator and lifelong friend. Together, the two began writing a criticism of the philosophy of Bruno Bauer, a Young Hegelian and former friend of Marx’s. The result of Marx and Engels’s first collaboration was published in 1845 as The Holy Family. Later that year, Marx moved to Belgium after being expelled from France while writing for another radical newspaper, Vorwärts!, which had strong ties to an organization that would later become the Communist League. In Brussels, Marx was introduced to socialism by Moses Hess, and finally broke off from the philosophy of the Young Hegelians completely. While there, he wrote The German Ideology, in which he first developed his theory on historical materialism. Marx couldn’t find a willing publisher, however, and The German Ideology along with Theses on Feuerbach, which was also written during this time were not published until after his death. At the beginning of 1846, Marx founded a Communist Correspondence Committee in an attempt to link socialists from around Europe. In 1848, he published The Communist Manifesto with Friedrich Engels and was banished to London, where he wrote the first volume of Das Kapital. Marx had many sociological contributions that targeted many effects and areas of how socialism, communism, and capitalism, and influenced society. He was known by his founding of his work, he called “Marxism.” Marxism is the study of contradiction between human nature and the way people should perform in a capitalist society.

Even though, Karl had a few obstacles in his career, he was one of the most influential figures of sociology. Plenty of Karl’s work did not get completed, he believed people were all the same just in different classifications. He also believed that each individuals should have been treated as an individual. The characteristics of each individual showed how their actions acted when combined with another. Karl was taught that if everything was taken away from each individual and given the same strategy then they all would do the same things. Mentioning back to the study of sociology, Marx studied how individuals acted and how individuals act within, he learned over the years that those given the power, they abuse it and others whom they abuse. Karl Marx died on March 14, 1883 in London. Marx died of pleurisy caused by acute bronchitis. Karl Marx was one of many historical figures of sociology. Sociology is still a perpetual learning content and as centuries goes on there will still be factors to study and acknowledge. Thanks to Karl Marx’s for his work and the studies of sociology can be furthered.

The aspect of alienation is the de- humanitarian of labour itself. this happens in the course of the division of labour promoted by capitalism. Division of labour is not a discovery of capitalism. It developed some year’s ages ago in history. At the same time, the source of material and cultural progress and human alienation started. It helped in the increase of productions by human labour. It makes it possible to produce a surplus, which is the necessary condition for the development of culture, art, politics, and religion.

The existence of philosophy is possible only on the fundament of the division of labour. But the progressive development of culture takes place when the cost of direct production is produced by the producers. Their horizon narrows down, they get specialized and lose their relations to the process as a whole. And at the end, entrepreneurs monopolize and control labours. Entrepreneur enjoys the profit which is biased on the understanding and the control of the total process and labours loss their freedom.

There is a principal contrast between the division of labour in pre-capitalist social orders and the new structures created by free enterprise. In pre-capitalist social orders, we can talk about a social division of labour.

Various social and economic exercises are split between different skills. It specializes in the division among town and nation, and between different artworks. It practices social creation with the goal that various artworks produce various products. In any case, the industrialist method of creation while heightening the social division of work presents additionally a specialized division of work which partitions one specific specialty, the creation of one specific product into however many details works as would be prudent and beneficial. The weavers, craftsmen, workers of an old created various commodities. The mechanical specialists in private enterprise have become detail workers who independently presently don’t create wares yet just all things considered as a component of an entire get-together of machines and labourers.

In the social division of labour, the producers may be alienated from the whole of society, but there is still a possibility of meaningful self-realization in the work. The technical division of labour alienation involves the process of labour itself. The social division of labour subdivided society, the technical division of labour subdivided humans.

There is a basic difference between the division of labour in pre-capitalist social orders and the new structures created by free enterprise. In pre-industrialist societies we can discuss a social division of labour Various social and financial exercises are divided between different artworks. It suggests the division among town and region or country, and between different artworks. It specializes the social creation with the aims that various crafts produce various commodities. But, the capitalist method of creation while they increase the social division of work presents in a technicaldivision of work what separates one specific specialty, the creation of one specific item into whatever number detail works as could be expected under the circumstances and productive. The weavers, carpenters, workers of old created various commodities. The industrial workers in capitalism have become detail labourers who exclusively presently don’t deliver products however just altogether as a component of an entire get together of machines and workers.

This process began with the co-operation of individual crafts man’s workshop under the control of an owner-capitalist. They actually filled in as in the before, producing the whole commodity. In any case, it was the beginning of heading, control, management. In the following phase of assembling the specialized division of labour starts. Every labourer is appointed to a couple of procedure on which he practices. Out of this a hierarchy order of labour-powers developed from most skilled and unskilled. Management turns out to be more significant, apart from control it expects increasingly more the capacity of preparation and conceptualisation of the work. The works need to execute the undertakings appointed to them, but as long as they are skilled they have still a specific freedom and control within the limits of their function the restrictions of their capacity.

In those period -sixteenth to eighteenth century -there were three fundamental changes in the character of productive work took place. The First capitalist management imposed the strike executive’s forces exacting order of work through methods for authoritarian control. The craftsmen of old had the opportunity to pick their own freedom of rhythm and style of work. Once forced into workshop and manufacture they have to subordinate themselves to the will of the managing capitalist. To manage originally meant to train or to prepare a horse in his speeds, to make him do the activities and manage it. ‘Also, control is without a doubt the focal idea of all administration. ‘ Secondly, under capitalist management that the fundamental division develops what isolates the conceptualisation and execution of the work.

This is given with the advancement of the detail labour who is not, at this point identified with the development of the production of a whole. Thirdly, the capitalist drive for profits to makes for the first time a large scale unskilled labour for example labours who for their lifetime are condemned to do cheap unskilled labour. In the old days the craftsman’s all common in the unskilled work, or if the students got the fundamental portion of it they had the point of view that this would change whenever they had finished their apprenticeship. In this way the division of labour are alienated from their products.

Man has become a miserable being in the capitalist from of society. There are various things, which are mainly responsible for this state of affairs. The capitalist cannot directly force the worker to work, but it is the owner of the means of production, the worker is indirectly compelled to sell his labour to the capitalist.

Therefore, the wage labour is economic completion, and losing of his freedom and reigned as a slavery. That is why labour becomes involuntary and a sacrifice. Since the worker has only commodity existence, free competition, anarchic mode of production, etc. Only intensify the surrender of people to blind force of things. People do not rule things but things rule people. This makes people collide with one another. All these increase unemployment, poverty, etc. of the working class.

On March 9,1776 “An inquire into the nature and cause of the wealth of nation” also it simply refers to “the wealth of nations” was first published. In this book Adam Smith describes the industrialized capitalist system that was upending the mercantilist system. According to this theory, nation can sell their goods to the other countries without buying any goods or in returns. It meant that nation can have international trade.

Central thesis of Adam Smith that our individual need to fulfil self-interest results in societal benefit, which is known as “invisible hand”

The division of labour is the economic result in the web of independencies which promote prosperity and stability in the process of market mechanism.

Smith says that Government should not interfere in the marketing activities, rather it should focus on this three functions, enforce civil law, protect nation borders, and engage in public work. (E.g. education)

Because of this the one side, it presents itself historically as a process and a necessary phase in the economic development of society, on the side it is a refined and civilized method of exploration.

Adam Smith argues that worker become “slothful” and lazy we don’t run division of Labour, compare this with his claim in the alienation passage there they become stupid and ignorant with it.

In the words of Hegel, the class of the proletariat is in basement indignation at that basement, an indignation to which it is necessarily driven by the contradiction between it’s human nature and it is necessarily driven by the condition between its human nature and its condition of life, which is the of life, which is the outright, decisive, a comprehensive negation of that nature.

According to the laws of political economy the alienation of the worker in his object is expressed as follows: the more the worker produces the less he has to consume, the more values he creates the more valueless and worthless he becomes, the more formed the product the more deformed the worker, the more civilized the product, the more barbaric the worker, the more powerful the work the more powerless becomes the worker, the more cultured the work the more philistine the worker becomes and more of a slave to nature because these there is less connection between them and so man is alienated from all of these.

Man himself becomes a pure labouring machine or fixed capital, which goes on producing labour power. The worker becomes an animated individual punctuation mark or a living isolated accessory of the machine.

The miserable life of the man is the end product of the capitalist mode of production. The misery results from the capitalistic system of labour. Man makes machines to facilitate his work, to increase production, to better the condition of his life, etc. Machines are nothing but objectified human labour. The products of human natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature.

The organizations of private property, dependent upon the division of labour and required certain property relations. Predominant groups, within the species having expressive business model over beneficial property decrease their resources and give or the substance of the species simply by appropriating the results of human labour power. The facts demonstrate that the work produces awesome things. But, for the specialist it produces privation.

Marx says since the means of production are an externalized and generalized result of work, it is inescapable, as indicated by Marx, that the more, the labour extends himself in labour the surer in his explanation, the more his utilization diminishes, and the more he becomes useless, crude, barbarous, and insufficient in knowledge. He delivers castles, however for him caves. He produces mobiles and for him just cycles. Hence in each part of his life it tends to be seen that the result of his work is taken away from him.

Alienated labour is always performed under impulse; work doesn’t fulfil any basically human requirements. This work gives no fulfilment and satisfaction except for is just a wellspring of actual weariness and mental corruption. It establishes only a method for occupation, a method for livelihood to keep the labour alive. At the end of the day we can say that labour gets no fulfilment and satisfaction except for work is just a source physical exhaustion, question of survival and mental degradation. It is said in this way “Work was compelled rather than spontaneous and creative,” as opposed to unconstrained and innovative. Here he gets latent and this, corrupts man to the level of the animal’s kingdom and consequently transforms wage labour into biological function.

Alienation from society implies that man is alienated from men. The alienation among man and man implies the dissolution of human relationships and social bonds. Men make use one another. Meaning to say, men treat each other as things or methods for fulfilling the selfish interests. The alienation from society changes society in to a total and along these lines builds up the alienated of labour.

Producer no longer produce useful value to fulfil assigned to satisfy needs for other people. He creates trade esteems, which just fulfil needs distantly, under impersonal market conditions. Marx says, because the relation of man to himself is first realized in the relationship between each man and other. Because of this reason, Marx says the essence of man remained unrealized.

The producer’s activities„ their forces, do not obey their own directs, but those of another for whom he is a producing vehicle. It is simply the deficiency of them. It would imply that man fails to remember his very essence as a man. ‘Nature, his body, his spiritual substance become outsider to him.’ Life itself shows up as just a method forever or a means of life. Man’s life-activity, has come to an existence to do just this?

If alienation was a metaphysical fact for Hegel, it was a sociological phenomenon or that event that estrangement was a supernatural reality.

For Marx. ‘If the source of all alienation is ‘alien’, hostile, powerful and the autonomous object’, not the object however the proprietor of the item is the ultimate source of all forms of alienation, for no one but men can establish this outsider control over men.

For a significant understanding of alienation, it very well may be seen as the state of a man who encounters life as empty, crazy and meaningless or neglects to keep an ability to be self-worth. If I do not find anything that is worth or valuable or important or regard, it is difficult for me to get real meaning in my life. Alienated workers are the people ‘robbed’ of all actual content.

Marx started his theory of alienation by criticizing Hegel for having identified objectification and the suppuration of alienation with the abolition of objectivity for having regarded human being as self-conscious and the alienation of man as the alienation of self – consciousness. Marx also criticized the notion of pure thought. He criticized Feuerbach’s religious alienation, as only one among many alienations. Marx held the view that man not just alienates a part of himself from God, he also alienates from other products results of this, spiritual activity action economic activities and social activity are affected to him.

Alienation however, doesn’t allude to just one structure of human existence or maybe there are structures of alienated existence in Marx’s theory. The result of his own activity makes lot of different, independent and powerful world of object towards which he is connected as a slave. He also alienates himself from the action of the production of the world. He uses the notion of alienation to distinguish or describe a specific kind of human ill of dissatisfaction, which is especially prevalent in present society. It is to this metaphor of natural separation or mastery by one’s own creation contributes in one way or the other.

The labour experiences alienation in a society in which the means of production are owned privately, because he is compelled to sell his labour. Mark ‘s theory of economics alienation was forced by the existing situation in the society of his time. He found out that labours were not what it should be in a society in which capitalistic liberalism is dominant, labour becomes a primary source of alienation. The industrialist changes his private property into a means of production, which is by natural social. The labourer, who needs to live from the means of production, sells his labours.

Due to this he loses the sense that he has needs to sell his fruit for all the hard labours in which his subjectivity is expressed. The labourer confronts his product as an alien object. The evil of the entire framework lies in the way that the production of labour in the possession of private owners. However, this evil is remaining, there can be no solution to for man economic alienation.

Economic alienation breeds social alienation. It means that the worker is alienated from himself, as well as from society. Worker is valid and human when he is in community with others. In a modem industrialized society the means of production and this demands that men work in collaboration.

In a factory the means of production can be utilized just when labour cooperate or work together. In this manner the experience not only Fulfilment, but also his oneness with other workers. Not only does the worker losses his self-identity, he is not in a position to call himself a fellow man.

It is the private ownership of the means of production, which is responsible for bringing about alienation in co-existence. Financial improvement can’t save the circumstance, nor can kill man’s alienation with his fellow men. Love can’t be able to bring remedy to the situation because of hatred, hardship and straggles this are contained in the very system.

The dominant class, that is the class in power, always tries, using all methods in its ability to create its force. These men of the dominant class are called ‘ideologies’. They attempt to justify, with the help of ideologies, the existence of alienation. These philosophies are common speculations of the states reasoning, writing and religion. Subsequently, it is necessary. Marx thinks that to expose these hypotheses, in light of the fact that an average state, theory and religion are the immediate courses of man’s alienation.

The greatest ideological power, which controls man in the state. Taking everything into account it feels that it is the protector of the interests, all citizens. To keep up the power of the state, laws and guidelines are passed in the name to justice, as conceived of by the dominant class. However, the other hand inhumanity and perpetuated. In this manner the class uses the state as a means to maintain its economic power.

Sociology was not yet a defined discipline still, Karl Marx is claimed as one of the founders of sociology. Marx’s approach to modern science that was distinctly sociological was his response of critical sociology (Little and McGivern, 2014). In combining his theory of Historical Materialism, alienation and the Communist Manifesto. It claimed Marx as a founder of sociology due to his political and intellectualised theories. By exploring the “appearance” of human nature, division of labour and class struggle, Marx critiques capitalism as beneficial to society (Little and McGivern, 2014).

Marx’s approach to modern society in the Historical Materialism renders his title as one of the founders of sociology. The theory explored human nature and its development based on material conditions (Acton and Baur, 2017:01). Whilst it was preconceived to primitive history, Marx fabricated this concept with what he predicted to be – capitalism (Acton and Baur, 2017:03). The notion subjects humans away from nature and undermines productivity through division of labour (Acton and Baur, 2017:03). This distinct approach through critical sociology, established himself as one of the founders of sociology. Marx’s analysis on “material conditions of life” is a fundamental motif in structuring modern society (Acton and Baur, 2017:04). By demonstrating institutions as not of human products but by economy (Hodges, 1959:24).

‘Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past” (Marx, 1933:315 cited in Hodges, 1959:24).

Essence of humanity rose from premodern modes of production; feudalism (Acton and Baur, 2017:06). An agricultural system coat tailing on workers confined to serfs; owners of land in which they work on (Acton and Baur, 2017:06). This power position allowed the serfs to integrate with politics. Justifying their actions of aristocratic rule as “moral” and a “natural” order (Acton and Baur, 2017:06). Those who identified under this rule, Marx refer to as the bourgeois, the forerunners of capitalism (Hodges, 1959:22). With this establishment of politics, a new ruling class rose, foreshadowing its social struggle against another class (Hodges, 1959:22). Legal and political institutions weigh in ‘like a nightmare on the living” (Hodges, 1959:24). Limiting the extent of creative conscious. Marking history as a source of class conflict drawing upon capitalism. This would be achieved through a series of revolutions e.g. the French revolution (Hodges, 1959:26). Marx’s interpretation of feudalism to capitalism portrays the ideology of political revolts. His work on sociology paired with the philosophy of history concerning social development. Comprised his theory of capitalism in the Historical Materialism through distinct approach of critical sociology. This established Marx as one of the founders of sociology.

Alienation is another of Marx’s result of critical sociology to approach modern science that claims his title as one of the founders of sociology. The most significance of this theory is of its implication throughout the present and future. Alienation refers to the utter surrender of self through separation of identity under capitalist agencies (Seigel and Ollman, 1973). Marx does not indicate alienation as a subjective feeling but as an objective experience of capitalism (Seigel and Ollman, 1973). This approach to modern society through critical analysis, further claims his title as one of the founders of sociology.

Likewise, in Historical Materialism, alienation is the segmented relations of humanity and nature through the projection of objectification, taking form of fetishization (Horowitz, 2010). Objectification is the loss of human authority and is placed under possession of another (Horowitz, 2010). Alterations between the unity of these relations demolishes human specificity (Horowitz, 2010). This distortion is enabled by the separation of class (Seigel and Ollman, 1973). Depicting struggles of worker and owner or proletariat and the bourgeoise (Seigel and Ollman, 1973). This power position heightens the value of quantity of commodity rather than quality (Seigel and Ollman, 1973). Reduction of production deprives workers of their passion of work and diminishes creativity (Seigel and Ollman, 1973). Therefore,

“the abstract existence of man as a mere workman who may therefore fall from his filled void into the absolute void” (Marx, 1844:75 cited in Seigel and Ollman, 1973).

Satisfaction to fulfil needs is now voided as society gains wealth, whilst workers themselves do not (Seigel and Ollman, 1973). Estranged labour only panders to the bourgeoise, thus, furthering the imbalance (Seigel and Ollman, 1973). Marx’s observation of alienation critiques capitalism detrimental effects on modern society through critical analysis of separation of humanity and objectification. This claims Marx’s title as one of the founders of sociology.

Marx claims his title as one of the founders of sociology through a distinct approach through the need of communism. In reference to alienated labour, Communist Manifesto, calls to overcome estranged labour by establishing the foregrounds of freedom (Jessop, 1998:26). Creating such an environment,

“man produces even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from such need” (Marx and Engels 1956:40 cited in James, 2017).

Under this sphere of necessary labour, production possess intrinsic values that encompasses free and self-realisation through nature (James, 2017). This necessity expands satisfaction of needs thus mode of productivity develops (James, 2017). A binding force that enables a sense of engagement that replicates an environment open towards human creativity (James, 2017). Forming an association of independence and authority of work (James, 2017). Workers are no longer at bay of economic and social constraints of alienation. Contrary to Marx’s approach to modern society through critical sociology, the realm of freedom is hindered due to class struggle.

While it is important to note, the Manifesto offers an alternative perspective of Historical Materialism (Jessop, 1998:26). Marx’s argues,

“history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle” (Jessop, 1998:26).

History is embedded with class struggle as social and economic resources constrict human conscious of quasi-natural laws (James, 2017). Through critical sociology, Marx referred these laws with association of natural law. Capitalism, nature and labour all result in revenue, reflective of commodity performances (James, 2017). Wage interests and production that are suppressed by surplus interest (Booth, 2014). Allowing the bourgeoise to uphold their roles as natural tendencies by,

“winning their way through and working themselves out with iron necessity” (Marx and Engels 1956:23 cited in James, 2017).

Further establishing his title as founder of sociology. However, modern sociologist commented on this critique as ‘vulgar’ depiction (James, 2017). Allusion of struggles as a natural cause of reason (James, 2017). Marx’s approach to modern sociology through critical sociology appreciates communism whilst acknowledges the constrain of capitalism. Claiming his title as one of the founders of sociology.

Through Marx’s distinct sociological approach of modern society through critical sociology implementations, his impact and overall domination nature. Within the field has established him as a primary founder of sociology. Thus, through the expression of his primary idealisms within his Historical Materialism, alienation and Communist Manifesto, the overlying expressions of the theory of capitalism could be depicted and brought upon as a factor of himself as a founder of the idealism.

Choose either Plato or Aristotle and one other thinker from those discussed in class (with the exception of Machiavelli). Compare and contrast the political philosophies of the thinkers chosen so as to discuss key concepts of political theory including democracy, equality and rights including the (civil) right to protest and to disobedience.

It is interesting to see the views and opinions of different philosophers who lived in different time period when it comes to the subject of political theory. These philosophers may not have directly written about political theory, but their way of thinking can be applied to political theory. In this essay I am going to talk about Karl Marx and Plato. We can say that; these two philosophers share different opinions about political theory.

The first philosopher that I have decided to discuss is Karl Marx. Marx was a 19th century German philosopher who had communistic political views. Marx lived in a period where the western world was dominated by the capitalist political ideology. Being a communist Marx found many problems with this ideology and wrote them down in his books. Marx says that communism is good as he believes that communist expresses that we as humans always have a place in the world heart. In general he found 5 problems with capitalism, he gave his views on why they are incorrect and he also gave his ideal world views, which naturally are communistic views due to his political ideology.

A problem with the capitalism when is comes to political theory is that modern work is alienated. He says this as he feels that in this modern world you don’t know what your contribution to the product your making is. In the past a carpenter made a whole chair himself whilst in this modern world on a production line various people come together fitting different parts in order to make a chair. Marx sees work as a source of joy and therefore you see yourself in the object you are making. The second problem that Marx finds is that the modern world is insecure, and that technology makes us terrified of being abandoned.

The third problem that Karl Marx finds is related to equality. He believes that in this modern world, workers get paid little whilst the capitalists who own the companies keep on getting richer. He sees this inequality himself in the time he was living in where poverty was very present. In this capitalist world, the low wages for the workers make bigger profits and Marx says that a bigger profit is a fancier word which is used instead of exploitation. This exploitation also comes in contact with the democracy which was present at that time where, only the elite where able to vote and had rights. Marx sees this as theft where prices of goods was high whilst wages where low, and this inequality annoyed Marx and saw the profit made by the companies as a reward for ingenuity.

The fourth problem that Marx found with capitalism and so due to his political philosophy he found wrong was that capitalism is very unstable. This instability will lead to crisis. Marx believes that crisis are endemic to capitalism. The problem is that we can produce too much than what one needs to consumer. Marx calls unemployment freedom as there are too many products therefore abundance of goods. In this modern world we have the potential to give everyone the basic necessities and also give wealth to everyone.

Although capitalism is done by capitalists, Marx also believes that this form of politics is wrong as it is bad for capitalists too. Capitalism, forces everyone to put their own economic interest at the sole of their lives. He believes that feminism is good for leisure. As he believes that unemployment is good, he therefore is saying that females should be happy not to work as this gives them time to relax. This cannot be said for males as they are the ones who are working all the time. So, as Marx believes that capitalism is a bad way of politics as it teaches us to be anxious, competitive, confirmative and politically complacent, Marx lists 4 important ides in his book titled the communist manifesto where he lists his ideal world.

Marx’s ideal world is based on communism. The first thing he believes is that, there should not be any privatisation of property together with no inheritance of the wealth of the family. This is a common communistic trait, where everyone works for his own money and nothing is given to the individual without doing anything. This is Marx’s ideal form of democracy which in reality could function but due to the modern world we live in where a family business is the key source for the income of the family, with Marx’s idea, the family would suffer. Also, many individuals would disagree that property would be owned by the state, as not everyone would get their fair share of property due to corruption which happens in every form of government.

Another burden that many people face in this modern world is the issue of tax. Marx believes that tax is good for a state as it’s a form of revenue which in return is pumped backed into the state through, services which would be offered free by the government. What Marx does not agree with is that the fluctuation of the tax percentage. He believes in his ideal communistic world that, there should be a steep gradual increase in income tax for all.

The third thing that Karl Marx believes in is that there would be a centralised control of banking, communication and transport. This would be an ideal idea for all types of government to implement as it’s a win win situation for all. The people would be happy as they would have efficient banking, communication and transport and also a win for the government as it would be in control of three needs that everyone needs. It would be much better having a government owned company rather than privately owned one.

The fourth and final thing that Marx believes that is important in his ideal world is that of free public education. This free public education would be equal to all and beneficial to all as every child would have the opportunity to be educated which would in return improve their pay if are coming from a family have a farm.

All these points that Marx makes are all communistic and therefore equal to all if practiced well. Unfortunately, the right to protest would be very limited in this type of political system as any protest would be silenced by the state.

The next philosopher that I have decided to discuss is Plato. Plato was a Classical Greek philosopher. He is said to be a key figure in the development of Western philosophy. We can interpret Plato’s philosophies into political philosophy through his books most notably The Republic. Plato, lived in the times of the collapse of the great city state of Athens as so his philosophical theories are based upon what he experienced in those times.

Plato, talks about happiness and the good live in most of his works. He believes in virtue which is crucial for him. Virtue meaning reason and query and also, the virtue is the centre point of ones life. Plato also believes that you should always put the greater good ahead of yourself. He believes that in order for you to be happy the people around you therefore the greater good should be happy too.

It is interesting to note that, Plato is one of a few philosophers who believe that, the ideal rule is where the rulers base their reasoning on virtue. His ideal form of rule is democracy which comes from the Greek word, demos and kratos, which means rule for the people. Living in such in the Greek city state Plato, saw democracy in its beginning and therefore in his work we can find Plato criticising the Athenian people on how they are using democracy.

Plato, believed that only intelligent people should be thought philosophy which was then key to help you on how to rule. The first, rather obvious, strike against Athenian democracy is that there was a tendency for people to be casually executed. It is understandable why Plato despised democracy, considering that his friend and mentor, Socrates, was condemned to death by the policy makers of Athens. Plato would write about the trial of Socrates in his first essay The Apology. Plato would later describe the trial of Socrates as a doctor being persecuted by a pastry chef and judged by a jury of children. Still, Socrates was not the only man to be executed in such a manner.

Therefore, we can say that Plato is in a way expressing the right to protest due to the incident that happened to his friend Socrates. The right to protest in a democracy is key for it to function properly and everyone’s voice is heard.

Karl Marx introduced the idea of Marxism, a socioeconomic way of organizing society by making the workers own the means of production. Marx proposed that this was the next step for all of society. This idea had its fair share of pros and cons that prevent people from making it a part of their society today.

Marxism had many pros. The most prominent strength of this theory is that it promotes equality. This theory, although connected to communism, focuses on human rights and equality despite one’s gender, religion, economic class, and education. Everyone, no matter who they are, is entitled to the same benefits and can access the same resources. An example of this can be seen through a janitor and a cardiologist. In this situation, the janitor is a high school dropout, while the cardiologist has gone through four years of undergrad and four years of medical school. Even though the janitor does not have half as much education as the doctor, both of them have access to the same resources as one another, regardless of their education, occupation, and economic class. Another example of this could be demonstrated through a 24-year-old female and a 39-year-old male. Despite the difference in gender and age, Marxism states that everyone is equal despite gender or age, therefore, both the male and female are allowed access to the same things in that society. This strength seems great on paper, but this strength is one of the biggest cons of this theory, which will be touched on later. Another strength that Marxism offers to society is that it reduces debt. This theory addresses society as a whole and promotes the help of communities. Communities will band together to provide for every individual in the community with help from the government, effectively helping someone or a group of people out of debt. An example of this strength being used can be shown through a family of four who is seriously in debt. If this family can not pay their monthly rent, the community will help them pay the rent with nothing in return. The government would also help distribute resources equally to everyone so not one person or group of people has more than everyone else.

Along with all its strengths, Marxism came with its fair share of weaknesses. The most talked-about disadvantage is that it promotes equality. This theory focuses on human rights and equality despite one’s gender, religion, economic class, and education. Everyone, no matter who they are, is entitled to the same benefits and can access the same resources. This was mentioned as a strength, but it is also Marxism’s greatest weakness. The reason why this is such a huge weakness is that everyone is treated the same no matter what. The example used in the strengths was a doctor who went through four years of undergrad and four years of medical school, and a janitor who is a high school dropout. Marxism would treat these individuals the same, even though there is a very clear gap in education and economic class. The doctor might argue that because he has a higher education than the janitor and a much more important job than the janitor, he should be paid way more, treated better, and have access to better and more resources than the janitor. The doctor may argue that he is superior to the janitor in many ways, therefore he should be giving extra attention. This con is the number one reason why Marxism and communism will never work in a democratic government, the only way to make these theories work is by having an authoritarian government that goes against theirs. Another prominent disadvantage is that Marxism and communism are essentially the same things. Both promote the equality of all human beings despite one’s gender, religion, economic class, and education. This form of equality will lead to many economic struggles and will lead to rebellions. Communism will also lead to an unmotivated society, because if everyone is getting the same salary, resources, and treatment, why should anyone put any effort into their work? An example of this could be a teacher and a lawyer. Why would any of these individuals put any effort into their work, and is there going to be treated the same despite the huge difference in occupation? This weakness is one of them, if not, the reason why this theory will never work in society as it depends on the goodwill of the citizens, it depends on natural law.

Even though Marx’s theory has its pros, its cons make it impractical in my opinion. The reason for this is that Marxism overly relies on natural law and the good nature of humans. Marxism can be seen as the dependent variable in this theory as it depends too much on other variables such as natural law, the independent variable. This dependence gives individuals opportunities to poke holes in this theory, and if it were to ever be applied to a society, it may lead to riots as demonstrated in the Chinese Communist Revolution where many communist sympathizers and anti-communist activists clashed, leaving areas in China in rubles. That riot should be a clear example of why communism may never work as it tries to force a ‘perfect’ and ‘ideal’ society on the citizens in society.

Religion could be a set of convictions that are passionately held by a gathering of individuals that are reflected in a worldview and in expected beliefs, activities, or actions. There are numerous different religions, each with a diverse set of beliefs. Beliefs are about the world and the individuals in it, about how they came into being, and what their purpose is. German philosopher Karl Marx’s view about religion, his examination and evaluation of religion as the opium of the masses is maybe one of the most popular and most cited or quoted by theists and non-believers. Unfortunately, most of those doing the quoting don’t truly get precisely what Marx meant. He really said very little about religion specifically; in all of his works, he hardly ever addresses religion in a systematic design, indeed even though he touches on it regularly in books, addresses, and pamphlets. The reason is that his evaluation of religion shapes essentially one piece of his general hypothesis of society, thus understanding his evaluation of religion requires some understanding of his evaluation of society in common. This essay will examine Karl Marx’s view of how religion is an opiate for people and perpetuates social imbalance and inequality.

Religion is a strong conviction in a supernatural power or powers that control human fate, or it is a framework of symbols, myths, doctrines, ethics, and customs for the expression of extreme relevance. Religion could be a concept that’s passed down from era to era and from generation to generation. The word ‘religion’ is one of those words that we tend to utilize all the time without stopping to consider its real meaning. Most of us utilize the term to mean a specific set of convictions or beliefs. If you’re Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu, at that point that’s your religion. But a religion is more than a set of convictions. Religion may be a principal set of convictions and practices generally concurred upon by a bunch of individuals. This set of convictions concerns the cause, nature, and reason of the universe, and includes reverential or devotional and custom observances. They also frequently contain an ethical or moral code administering the conduct of human undertakings and affairs.

Karl Marx was a German philosopher who endeavored to look at religion from an objective, logical perspective. According to him, religion is the opium of the masses, it is an expression of material substances and financial bad form and injustice. In this way, issues in religion are eventually issues in society. Religion isn’t an infection or disease, but only a symptom. It is used by oppressors to make individuals feel superior about the trouble they were involved in due to being destitute, misused, and exploited. According to Marx, religion is one of the social teachings or institutions in a given society. It has no autonomous history, but instead is a creature of beneficial and productive power. In truth, religion is only subordinate and dependent upon financial matters, nothing else, so real religious doctrines are nearly unimportant and irrelevant. This can be a functionalist translation of religion: the understanding of religion is subordinate to what social purpose religion itself serves, not the substance of its convictions and beliefs. Marx’s opinion was that religion is a figment or illusion that gives reasons and excuses to keep society working, and functioning just as it is.

Marx has three reasons for disliking religion. First, it is irrational: religion could be a fancy or delusion and worship of appearances that avoids or maintains a strategic distance from recognizing basic reality. Second, religion refutes or negates all that’s stately and dignified in a human being by rendering them servile and more amenable to tolerating and accepting the status quo. And third, religion is misleading and hypocritical.

Marx is saying that religion is meant to make deceptive fantasies for the destitute. Financial substances prevent them from finding genuine bliss and happiness in this life, so religion tells them this is okay because they will discover genuine happiness in the next or another life. Marx isn’t completely without sensitivity or sympathy. Individuals are in trouble and distress, and religion does give and provide solace, just as individuals who are physically harmed get help from opiate-based drugs. The issue is that sedatives fail to fix a physical injury, you only disregard your pain and torment and endure or suffer for a while. This will be fine, but only if you’re also attempting to solve the fundamental causes of the torment and pain. Essentially, religion does not fix the fundamental reasons for people’s torment and suffering, instead, it helps them disregard and forget why they are suffering and causes them to see forward to a non-existent and imaginary future when the torment ceases rather than working to change circumstances now. What is actually more awful, this ‘drug’ is being managed by the oppressors who are responsible for the pain and suffering.

In conclusion, I want to summarize everything that Karl Marx thought about religion and the role it plays with his famous words: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”.