Category: Socialism

Introduction

Khomeini was an outstanding political leader who strived to reorganize the government and imposes his religious vision of ruling the economy.

In particular, his work entitled as The Necessity for the Islamic Government, he outlines his position towards the government and his vigorous apposition against Western tendencies in administering the state. The main point of his work is based on the idea that government should be guided by divine laws and there should be executive and administering organs that would implement laws and ordinances of Islam.

In addition, Khomeini is reluctant to accept corrupt and ruthless regimes that contradict Islam teachings. He was more concerned with the necessity to preserve national and religious identity being the basic need of Islamic people. In contrast to his judgments, liberalist and socialist views on the government and its functions are quite different. To be more exact, their outlooks contradict Khomeinis views on the government and power in terms of religion, political system, and social rights of people.

Liberalism Response to Khomeini

By juxtaposing liberalist and Khomeinis outlook on the government, there are numerous aspects and ideas that considerably differ from each other. This particularly concerns such issues as individual freedom and equality of human rights. Another serious discrepancy is revealed through different views on the relation of religion and government.

Hence, Khomeini envisions religion as the basis for constructing laws and regulations within governmental bodies believing that this will contribute to the production of morally upright and virtual human beings (Khomeini 42). In contrast, liberalism insists on the necessity to separate the church and the state believing that religion should not be involved in governing and administering people.

Considering religious views, particularly the views on separation of the church and the state, it is necessary to resort to Thomas Jefferson provides his position which challenges Khomeinis view. Hence, Jefferson believes that a religion is a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to priests (Jefferson as cited in Jefferson and Beileson 34).

Interpreting this statement, liberalism envision religion is not a social phenomenon, there is no connection between religion and government because they are based on different outlooks. Besides, liberalism could also oppose to Khomeinis idea about close connection of government to morality stating that these notions cannot be considered within one context.

As it has been mentioned previously, the liberal ideas centers on the need of individual freedom. It was supported by many philosophers who did not believe in power of monarchy. Liberalism is known to entail different beliefs and ideas in what they call a better life.

The liberalists seem to back Khomeinis idea of having a good life in future without what they call a tyrannical authority. The renowned liberalism philosophers include John Locke, Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill all of whom their work seems to advocate for a liberal and free kind of society.

John Lock in his works Two Treatises on Government states that there are two liberal components which are the intellectual liberty, which include the freedom of conscience and the economic liberty (Locke 4). This issue is expounded by the philosopher as freedom to possess property and deal with it in any manner.

He goes further to explain what intellectual liberty entailed in his Letter Concerning Toleration. John Locke shares the same religious ideas such as Khomeini where he argues in his works that man was created by God who gave his commands that man enjoys whatever is on the earth.

In response to Khomeinis views on religion, the philosopher has a different perception of this concept with regard to the government. In particular, he believes that although a person should be concerned with the divinity laws, there still should be the idea of individualism.

In addition, he was less extreme in his views on religion as an integral part of the administrative and executive organs. It should be the basis of the political system (Locke 13). These ideas are similar to those of Khomeini who argues the necessity to form a government that will serve as a protector to the society when it comes to enforcing the rights of individuals.

Further in his work, Khomeini bases his arguments on the Quran, the same concept used by Locke when he backs his argument on the concept of creation. However, Locke seems to disagree with Khomeini on the concept of entrusting the government wholly to govern man. He argues that man should be left to acquire his natural state of living and should not live under certain rules. He argues that the government should act as a trustee only.

Thomas Paine on the other hand wrote several articles backing the need of freedom of man. In his articles, he criticized the monarchies and the social institutions. He went further to expose the governments wrongs such as fraud in a bid to promote individual freedom and degradation.

He reasons with Khomeini on the need of a government that promotes individual rights rather than living under a certain tyrannical body with no proper rules of law put in place. He however was not affiliated with any religion and argued that he believed that his mind was his religion. His pamphlet, common sense is said to contribute to the idea of a republic government. It advocated for a better form of government other than the tyrannical one that Americans had been accustomed to at the time (Paine and Philp 7).

John Stuart Mill on the other hand advocated for Utilitarianism and one of the chief campaigners for liberty. He also had the same idea like the other two philosophers about attaining some form of happiness to the people.

He argued that the monarchs had excess powers to the peril of the common citizen and he became an advocate of fighting for those powers to be shed so that people should attain their freedom (Mill 15). He further contended that though power had been given to people through what he calls democratic governments, the threat is that liberty has been denied to people because of the laws imposed or social pressure.

Socialism Response to Khomeini

Confronting socialist views to Khomeinis position about governmental system, it should be noted that socialistic school of thought greatly opposes to Islamic teaching that rejects the individuality and human consciousness. This is especially connected with the concept of equality, individual freedom, and necessity for changes. Like liberalist, they are also in a strong apposition to religion rejecting to accept divinity laws as the basis for governmental system.

According to Marks, [r]eligion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritualistic point dhoneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn completion, its universal ground for consolation and justification ( Marx 20). On the one hand, the socialism idealist accepts religion as the essence of a human being (Marx 20). On the other hand, Marx perceives religion as a parallel world that does not have anything in common with politics and government.

The social theorists base their arguments on the modern capitalism. They refer socialism as a society that is made up of political movement or philosophy (Lenin 240). In contrast to Islamic teachings that impose some sort of duties and obligations in front of God, socialism is more concerned with equality of human rights and the formation of consciousness independent of religion.

However, the similarity of views is based on the assumption that all people should be equal in wealth and opportunities. But this slight congruence is deceptive because there is much more serious divergence in views with regard to political system. Judging from Khomeinis views, the philosopher considers government as an absolute monarchy where the governor is considered to be the envoy of God.

In response to this judgment, socialist insist that political power belong to people who have the right to participate in administering the state. Such a position is extremely opposed to Islamic governmental system that finds it extremely important to have one ruler for avoiding chaos and disorder.

The proletariats on the other hand were the working class who sold their labor power. They argue that proletariat would take over the economy which would lead to diminishing social classes (Marx et al. 12). The Marxism theory is based on social change and the main aspects included the materialist and dialectical historical concept which explains the struggle in social classes.

The other aspect is capitalism criticism where Marx argues that the bourgeoisie oppressed the proletariat in a capitalist society and lastly is the aspect of proletarian revolution where the working class will take over the power in a social revolution (Bernstein 3).

The socialism philosophers believed that man should fight to be free of any tyranny or any kind of anarchism (Zedong 12). Other socialism philosophers like Trotsky tend to differ with Marx opinion of the Proletariat taking over the economy (Trotsky 13).

Conclusion

It can be seen that while both the philosophers of liberalism and socialism present quite different arguments on freedoms of individuals, governmental system and religion, but still they are rigidly apposed to Khomeinis image of the Islamic government.

Hence, the supporters of liberalism are more concerned with individual freedom where human rights and interests should be protected by the government. They defend democratic values and believe that the state should be separated from the church. The socialism theorists base their arguments of certain classes of the individuals oppressing their counterparts and not a governing body.

The Marxist theory reveals that the weaker class will take over the stronger class through a social revolution, which contradicts Khomeini idea about the necessity to introduce executive and administrative bodies. On the other hand, the liberalism theorists support Khomeini arguments that indeed a government is very necessary but that very same government should not withhold the freedom of the people.

Works Cited

Bernstein, Eduard, Evolutionary socialism: a criticism and affirmation, Stuttgart: Huebsch, 1911.

Jefferson, Thomas and Belienson Nick. Thomas Jefferson: His Words and Visions. NJ: Peter Pauper press, 1998.

Khomeini, Imam. Islam and Revolution: writings and declarations of Imam Khomeini. Trans. Hamid Algar. US: Mizan Press, 1998

Lenin, Vladimir. Revisionism, Imperialism, and Revolution. Ideals and Ideologies, Terence Ball and Richard Dagger. New York: Pearson Longman, 1967

Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government. US: Urie R, 1957.

Marx Karl, Engels Friedrich, and Gaspe, Philip. The Communist Manifesto: A road Map to Historys Most Important Political Document, Canada: Haymarket Books, 2005.

Marx, Karl. Marxism, Socialism, and Religion. US: Resistance Books, 2001.

Mill, John. On Liberty and Utilitarianism. France: Bantam; 1993.

Paine, Thomas & Philp, Mark. Rights of Man; Common sense and other political writings. Oxford University Press, London, 1998

Trotsky, Leon. Revolution; the permanent revolution; 1931. Web. www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm

Zedong, Mao. Democratic Dictatorship. Basic postulates.1949. Web. www.latest-science-articles.com/&/The-Study-of-the-Relationship-between-Lenin-Oriental-Theory-and-Mao-zedong-Thoug-6

One of the major ideas nurtured in the works of Charles Fourier and Count Saint-Simon is the concept of utopian socialism. Although today the majority of political thinkers are more skeptical about the idea of utopian socialism in general and versions of this ideology represented in the works of Charles Fourier and Count Saint-Simon, in particular, their ideas influenced many of the contemporary ideas. Thus, it is still important to analyze all the implications of this conception and the ways, in which it influenced political, philosophical, and social aspects of understanding the structure of society.

It is imperative to note that both Charles Fourier and Count Saint-Simon did not attempt to be associated with utopian socialism neither had they created the term. Only in the process of further development of their theories, approaches, and techniques to the solution of problems of society proposed by Charles Fourier and Count Saint-Simon were identified as socialistic and utopian.

In a bigger perspective, considering the historical circumstances, both philosophers merely represented their vision of the societal problems related to economy and politics. The ideas expressed by Charles Fourier and Count Saint-Simon, of course, operated and were based on the notions of class and societal hierarchy, but they did not constitute their views based on socialistic political agenda as we now know it.

Although the ideas maintained by Charles Fourier were considered to be radical by his contemporaries, today some of them are among the basic principles of the societal structure. In terms of the political meaning of gender, the philosopher was the first to use the word feminism. Charles Fourier also had strong opinions on the question of morals, education, and their role in society. However, the main influence produced by Charles Fourier is associated with the theoretical basics of political economy.

First of all, it is important to point out the fact that one of the major of Fouriers ideas was the concept of cooperation between all the members of a particular society. In views of Fourier, only in the situation of social concern for other members of the society, it is possible to make it more effective both in terms of economic development and about the status of individuals in that society. Even though during his lifetime, the ideas of liberating the working classes and cooperating with them were not supported, they influenced the formation of various movements associated with socialism in a lot of ways.

Some of those ways are still considered an important part of practical implementations of political science, including the works of John Stuart Mill, whereas some of the others are more radical. However, at the time, even Karl Marx regarded the ideas of Charles Fourier as utopian and unrealistic. Overall, Fourier occupies a place among the most influential people in terms of shaping the views of future political economists.

As has been already mentioned, one of the main concepts of Charles Fouriers ideas is the notion of collaboration. The philosopher wanted to restructure existing society to make an economic contribution of particular individual merit of his or her reward for a job done. In some ways, such a concept corresponds to the idea of more direct economic cooperation in the society.

While Fourier saw a type of direct justice in his conception of the correspondence between an amount of work an individual performs and a reward for that work. However, it is also important that social economy development is at a crucial stage due to the present economic crisis which will validate or invalidate specific economic patterns; the process of social economy projects evaluation and monitoring is a priority because it allows demonstrating the need to continue the innovating initiatives that may change people and communities. For that reason, some of the ideas proposed by Charles Fourier are still inspirational if not applicable in the modern context.

As for the common ground between the works of Charles Fourier and Saint-Simon, one of the main features is that both philosophers supported the doctrine of cooperation between different classes. First of all, it is significant to point out the fact that Saint-Simon believed that more in the opposition between idling and working classes rather than cooperation. Charles Fourier thought that classes should adopt one common utopian model of the economic structure whereas Count Saint-Simons system of new economic basis was more simplistic. The main difference between the two approaches was in the way of interpreting the relationships between different economic classes.

On the other hand, the ideas of the two philosophers are compliant in the sense that they both suggest adopting a new model of an economic and societal structure that would eliminate negative aspects of class differentiation. According to a prominent sociologist Emile Durkheim, in his works, Saint-Simon promotes the system of philanthropy at different levels. The reason for that lies in the fact of societal dualism, the combination of individualism and unity in society.

Saint-Simon took favor of the idea that economic relationships in society should be based on the principle of individualism. That is why it is reasonable to say that the philosopher preferred the working (or industrial, as he referred to it) class over the idling class of people who would rather exploit the fruits of someone elses work. Asiminei suggests that Saint-Simon praised the working class (owners, industrialists, merchants, farmers, chefs, and workers) and is critical to the useless of the military, legislators, metaphysicians and other bourgeois.

It is also fair to assume that some core individualism, seeking a personal benefit from the work would, according to Saint-Simon, eliminate exploitation. In this regard, there are some similarities between Saint-Simon and Fouriers approaches to defining classes and class relationships.

On the other hand, such conceptual framework proposed by the philosopher would undermine any intervention of the government in the economic process. In other words, such position, although it is classified as an example of utopian socialism, has some tendencies of self-regulated civil society, in which the role of the government cannot restrict the rights of citizens. Due to the possibility of such interpretation, the political economy of Saint-Simon can be considered an influence on the contemporary liberal theories. Also, if the ideas of Count Saint-Simon are interpreted more radically, they can be considered as an inspiration for a variety of anarchic ideologies. The reason for that also is in the disapproval of hierarchical structure.

However, about the control of the society, the views of Saint-Simon and those of Fourier differ in several ways. The system of regulating society suggested by Charles Fourier still included some elements of hierarchical control. Moreover, in the societal model, according to which, in Charles Fouriers opinion, all the members of a particular society should live, the hierarchy was quite literate, it was implemented in the very structure of the building of such utopian society.

According to Charles Fourier, those who were superior in their work should live above the others, both in terms of location in of their flats and about their social status. Such severe distinction was not typical for Count Saint-Simon, who explicitly disapproved of superior and idle behaviors of the upper classes. Thus, in such a way, despite several similarities between the approaches suggested by Charles Fourier and Count Saint-Simon, there are still some crucial differences.

Also, it is important to note that Saint-Simon disapproved of the very idea of a hierarchical structure of any society. Economic development, in his view, is a result of free interaction between working people, where those who use different capacities can achieve more reward. In terms of relating to the modern political economy, such conception is useful for different interpretations of a free market. Considering that, in the modern context, the models suggested both by Charles Fourier and Count Saint-Simon would be even harder to implement practically than it was in their time, the ideas of two philosophers should be used as a theoretical basis rather than direct instruction.

In conclusion, there are some common features and differences between the ideas of Charles Fourier and Count Saint-Simon. Firstly, while Charles Fourier supports the idea that relationships between different classes merely need harmonizing that the best model for a new society should be based on collaboration between different classes, Count Saint-Simon believes that classes are in opposition to each other, in which working classes are deprived, and idling classes are overindulged.

On the other hand, they both support the idea of an entirely new economic model and societal structure, based on the idea of reward corresponding to the amount and quality of the job. Of course, in the modern context, the models suggested by the two philosophers would hardly be used since they would result in the deprivation of the vulnerable groups of society. Meanwhile, the theoretical basis provided by Charles Fourier and Count Saint-Simon is still actively used in many modern theories of sociology, economics, and political economy.

Bibliography

Charles Fefferman, Robert Fefferman, and Stephen Wainger. Essays on Fourier Analysis in Honor of Elias M. Stein, Princeton, 2014.

Charles Fourier, Ian Patterson, and Gareth Stedman Jones. The Theory of the Four Movements. Cambridge, 1996.

Emile Durkheim. Socialism and Saint-Simon, Routledge, 2009.

Jane Levi. Charles Fourier Versus the Gastronomes: The Contested Ground of Early Nineteenth-Century Consumption and Taste. Utopian Studies: London, 2015, pp. 41-57.

Jon Van Til. Utopian Conceptions of Societys Third Sector. Viable Utopian Ideas: Shaping a Better World: Shaping a Better World, 2015.

Michael Newman. Socialism. New York, 2010.

Romeo Asiminei. Social Economy a conceptual framework. Journal of Social Economy: New York, 2009, pp. 23-39.

Thomas Oatley. International political economy. Routledge, 2015.

Thomas Winterbottom. Educational Ideas of Charles Fourier 1772-1837: Zeldin. Routledge, 2013.

Victor Nicolaescu. Importance of financing the social economy projects. Journal of Community Positive Practices: New York, 2012, pp. 520-551.

W. Seay, The Origins of Political Economy ECON101/ INTL102, Virginia Commonwealth University, 2015.

The notion that socialism is only attainable by revolution and not by reform is one that has been explored extensively and still remains a subject of great political debate. In examining this question, one has to revert to the original tenets of socialism as delineated by Karl Mark and Frederick Engels in the Communist Manifesto (1848).

In their description of the Marxist principles embodied in socialism, they carefully detail a system whereby the working-class members of a given society would violently overthrow the existing bourgeois state and establish a system of government that is ruled by the working class. Since the writing of the Communist Manifesto, there have been many attempts at establishing socialist states. These attempts ranged from bringing about socialism through violent revolutions to impacting socialism through gradual governmental reform initiatives. The two decades between 1900 and 1920 were marked by very active governmental participation which involved the socialist parties in many European states, especially within Germany wherein there were different socialist ideologies were adopted.

In some instances, the radical socialists who once opposed the bourgeois system were willing to compromise in order to achieve a form of socialism that was less radical and proved less detrimental to the health and well-being of the citizens within the nation.

The notion of moderate socialism is one that incorporates the basic tenets of socialism wherein there are economic and political arrangements within the government which focus on the public or community ownership of the materials which produce the economic wealth of the nation. These materials include land, factories, and other property which are used to produce goods and services for society. Moderate socialism was able to achieve this aim to some degree without the revolutionary underpinnings. One example of this can be seen in the Fabian Society which was founded in 1884 in London and existed within the United Kingdom.

Within this adaptation, the members of society were taught that socialist ideology could be achieved in a gradual manner with the utility of a clearly defined set of reforms. These methods were predominantly described as methods of social defiance which included strikes, boycotts, acts of noncooperation, protests, and setting up alternative institutions (Crick 1976).

Another more stringent adaptation of the construct of socialism is the Erfurt Programme which was adopted by the German Social Democratic Party in 1891. Under this program, it was declared that the struggle of the working class against capitalist exploitation is necessarily a political struggle. The working class cannot develop its economic organization and wage its economic battles without political rights. It cannot accomplish the transfer of the means of production to the community as a whole without first having come into possession of political power. (Modern History).

Despite the fact that this statement implicitly points out the need for a revolution in that there is a need for the transfer of the means of production, this was not the case. This party was able to abolish a system of class rule in a very democratic manner and was able to maintain control of Germany between June of 1920 and March of 1933.

Their rule came to an end with the declaration of Hitler as a dictator and facilitated by an Enabling Bill initiated by Hitler and voted approved by three-quarters of the members of the Reichstag.

While in power, the German Social Democratic Party did not fight for class privileges and class rights but for equal rights for all irrespective of class, political party affiliation, gender, or race. They did so utilizing ten basic tenets. These tenets are as follows:

1. There was a need for universal rights that can only be attained through suffrage, the free election with individuals over the age of 20 being allowed to participate, and the abolition of any barriers to equal voting rights.
2. Self-determination among the people with majority rule
3. Education to the militia wherein they would be equipped with the knowledge to partake in arbitration and other peaceful means of dispute resolution.
4. The abolition of all laws hinder the meeting of various individuals and the formation of coalitions.
5. The abolition of all laws which inherently discriminate against women.
6. A separation of the Church and State.
7. Completely free secular education which includes all the materials and supplies necessary in the pursuit of education.
8. Free legal assistance and access to equal justice as well as the ability to compensate individuals who are wrongfully accused of crimes.
9. Free medical assistance which includes medicine and burial expenses.
10. Graduated income and property tax.

In addition to the basic tenets of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, there were several demands expressed on the behalf of the working class. These demands included the need for a workday which included no more than eight hours of employment, the prohibition of child labor for children under the age of 14, a strict monition on night work, and many other protections such as the aforementioned.

In theory, moderate socialism is an excellent ideology but when one tries to extend this theory practically, there are many problems and obstacles which arise. The first obstacle is one that deals with human nature and is addressed extensively in the Communist Manifesto. It is one that explores the proclivity of individuals in power and relates to the notion that once in power an individual will take the necessary steps to remain in power. Essentially, individuals in power want to remain in power.

Essentially, the bourgeois will not willingly relinquish the power and acquiesce to the demands of the working class. Karl Marx was adamant about the fact that the only thing that would make them relinquish that power is a revolution wherein the working class of the world would unite with one aimto acquire all of the productivity resources within a nation and effectively cripple the economy. In crippling the economy, the bourgeoisie would be left with no other alternative but to relinquish power to the working class in order to survive. This involves the coordination of efforts which is almost unachievable.

One answer to the question of the inherent selfishness of individuals by virtue of being human was offered by traditional socialists who felt that society would impact a transformation in human nature and would naturally purge selfishness. In so doing, it would create a New Socialist Man.

This new man would be devoid of selfishness, self-determination and instead would embody the single desire to work arduously for the new socialist state. Throughout the course of history, many have worked with this aim in mind.

Individuals such as Lenin and Bukharin attempted to achieve this end under the tenets of War Communism. The same was attempted later by Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara who worked tirelessly to replace the inclination to seek material possessions with what they referred to as moral incentives. This notion was one that was ridiculed by many and when examined closely, one can see the difficulty inherent in attempting to bring about such a drastic change on a voluntary basis.

The very idea of the New Socialist Man is one that proves to be theoretically sound but in all practicality, the only way of imparting such a change is through force and even after force has been utilized there is nothing preventing the individuals who come into power from utilizing selfish motives in their rule (Chen 1969).

Despite the fact that there is a difference in the theoretical construct of socialism and its practical applications, many of the concepts can be practically applied. This is clear in the case of the Fabian Society and the Erfurt Programme. In those cases, socialism was practiced and it was made possible through non-violent and non-revolutionary means. These two cases are not unique but they do illustrate that some concepts of socialism are possible through a reform in the political structure.

These reforms paved the way for increased power on the part of the workers. In fact, a tempered version of socialism has been applied in capitalistic societies as illustrated by the concept of labor unions. In answering the question posed, I would have to emphatically disagree with the statement that socialism is only attainable by revolution and not by reform for the reasons stated throughout this paper.

Works Cited

Chen, Theodore Hsi-en. The New Socialist Man. Comparative Education Review. 13.1 (1969): 88-95.

Crick, Bernard. The Character of a Moderate (Socialist). The Political Quarterly 47.1 (1976): 5-28.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick. The Communist Manifesto: Complete with Seven Rarely Published Prefaces. St. Paul, MN: Filiquarian Publishing, LLC, 2005.

Modern History Sourcebook. German Social Democracy: The Erfurt Program, 1891. Web.

Spartacus Educational. Enabling Bill. 2007. Web.

There are various definitions and assertions as to what constituted the transition period. According to Marx, the transition period was a time when the means of production was brought into common ownership by the working class using the power of the state. In other words, it was a period when the working class had taken over the state power from the capitalist class (Lange, 1971, p.39). Rather the transition period is the political period between the capture of political power by the working class within the capitalist society and the eventual establishment of socialism in an epoch during which the working class had replaced the capitalist class as the ruling class or as the controller of the state power. The period ends with the establishment of the classless society that is founded on the common ownership as well as the democratic control by the society at large (Oittinen, 2010, p.190). In addition, the era concludes with the subsequent vanishing of coercive state and the system that supported working for wages. To Marx, the transition period was that time when the political power had been captured by the working class and before the establishment of the common ownership of the means of production.

The evolution period was similarly perceived as that period up to the time when the universal ownership of the economic production was established. Consistent with Marx claims, this period was to take a longer time (Lenin, 1918, p.390). The proletarian revolution was alleged to change society later and gradually abolish private property, which was an eminent characteristic of the capitalists only when the economic means were accessible in adequate quantity. In other words, social change will ultimately come about when the economic means are sufficient to support that change. Indeed, the state of economic development is an essential component in bringing about socialism. During Marx time, this was not possible as the economic development at that time could not support that huge change. In fact, in relation to Marx quotation, that was the reason why many attempts to bring social change in some places failed (Martov, 1977, p.50).

Socialism is based on the core value of economic equality, which not only materializes between the individuals but also amongst the nations. Put differently, the broader socialism ideology contains numerous core values whereby the most significant appears to be equality in economic activities (Marquit, 2005, p.501). In socialism the economic equality is a precondition for all other aspects of society such as politics hence, such equality is considered a requirement for the attainment of political equality and social balance that specifically appertains to individual liberty.

To socialists, the limited access to economic resources by the working class or the proletariat is the reason for their inability for political participation, limited opportunities as well as restricted freedoms. Socialists hold the belief that it is only in an equal society where self-centered values could be replaced with collective or societal values. Socialists assert that individuals are not naturally self-centered, but they are shaped by society since they were brought up in the surrounding where there are competition, inequality, and self-interest people (Mars, 1984, p.91). Thus, the ultimate goal of socialism was to create a relatively equal and meritocratic society that is totally freed, prosperous, and all-inclusive. However, the means by which this goal may be achieved or the ultimate socialism end is still being contested.

Marxist emphasizes that for socialism to be effected successfully, capitalism must first be abolished through revolutions where the proletariat claims the state power over the capitalists. Marx nonetheless argues that in capitalist countries where universal suffrage is the norm, parliamentary road to socialism could be easily achieved (Matthews, 1986, p.27). In line with Marxist theory, the capitalist system is inherently unequal, unjust, and exploitative. Furthermore, to Marxists, the rise in severe economic crisis leads to extreme poverty and the continual gap between the capitalists and the working class. The inequality created by the economic crisis will result in a class conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Similarly, the class consciousness will increase with the working class transforming from being a class in itself to a class for itself. Based on Lange (1971) assertions, this will eventually make them succeed in overthrowing the capitalists system, the ultimate source or inequality as well as exploitation and take control of the state power (p.40).

Marxists argue that attaining socialism through parliamentary means is untenable since leaders of the parliamentary socialist parties can rather humanize than abolish capitalism. Alternatively, they can adopt more moderate policies so as to attract more electoral support. Another reason could be that the state institutions, which in most cases are not neutral, may discourage the accomplishment of radical socialists policies. Moreover, the continued application of capitalists ideas within the social system will, by extension, continue to inhibit the extent through which socialists reforms could be undertaken by the parliament (Lenin, 1918, p.391).

Marxists affirm that after the proletarian revolution, several stages had to be followed before the eventual achievement of communist classless within the society. The first stage out of all feasible stages is the proletarian dictatorship, where the leaders of the proletariat will concentrate power to avoid counter-revolution or consequently, where the power is restricted from the opponents. The socialist phase is when the private property is totally abolished, and the state resources become distributed to the working class according to everyones ability to work. In other words, the economic incentive will still be needed to distribute state resources (Lange, 1971, p.41). The gradual change from socialism to communism soon follow where the state resources would be distributed not derived from an individuals ability to work but according to the peoples needs. This presents a high level of economic equality and outcome, which persists to be the ultimate goal of socialism.

In the Marxists theme, the abolition of the private property means a scheme to do away with the capitalists class and establish classlessness. As a result, the state which was previously under capitalists instruments will finally fade away though there would be the need for some forms of administrative tools to help in organizing the society at the national level (Martov, 1977, p.54). Thus, as the Marxists proclaim, ultimately, the revolution will create classlessness, prosperity, equality, and corporation among members of society.

Lenin (1918) maintains that the controversy is between radical revolutionary socialism and moderate evolutionary socialism (p.390). The dispute is on the way through which socialism can be achieved and its ultimate end. The radical revolutionary socialists support the total abolition of the capitalists system that entails the abolition of the private property, social class, private profit as well as the capitalists state. According to the radical socialists, this was necessary since the final goal of socialism is to end the class exploitation. For instance, this will put in place the production process and efficiently allocate all the available economic resources according to the peoples social needs instead of the dictations of the capitalists profit scheme (Matthews, 1986, p.29). Radical socialists view the new society as more economically equal. In essence, economic equality would ultimately bring greater liberty, equal opportunities and increase political participation.

Moderate evolutionary socialists on the other hand have opted to humanize the capitalists system instead of completely replace it in order to retain the liberal democracy institutions. According to the evolutionary socialists the eventual economic end of socialism is the increased economic opportunity which results in the rising living standard especially with respect to the poor in society (Oittinen, 2010, p.191). To the evolutionary socialists, this can be achieved through a combination of socialism and capitalism policies which in one way or the other gives rise to an egalitarian economic and social policy. The moderate socialists argue that some sort of inequalities is necessary to support the financial incentives though it should not be large enough to unfavorably affect the living conditions of the poor. Additionally, the state should not be seen as a capitalist or the socialist but as a neutral state that could be utilized to increase the goals of the socialists. Generally, the liberal socialists stresses that the liberal democratic political institutions are very essential in safeguarding civil liberties which in effect are deemed imperative components of socialism (Lowy, 1986, p.267).

Practically radical socialism later failed to materialize as those countries that later adopted the system gradually developed into anarchy. The development of the radical socialist movement into anarchy was predicted by some anarchist socialists who argued that several evolutionary front line parties would lead to the repressive one party state and to the impossibility of libertarian socialism which is regarded as the preferred anarchist variant of socialism (Marquit, 2005, p.502).

Socialism and communism picked momentum after the events and social conditions of the late 18^th century and early 19^th century. This period was marked by the Industrial revolution that swept across Western Europe (FitzGerald, 1985, p.9). The industrial revolution led to rapid growth in industries through coordinated mass production. In fact, the industrial expansion in Europe led to disastrous results as industries competed for markets without regulation and exploited the ever-growing number of industrial workers. Due to this exploitation, the living conditions of the social workers deteriorated seriously leading to extreme poverty and further degradation. In return, Callinicos (2010) states that socialism which was widely perceived as a form of economic planning emerged where the government controlled all means of revenue production and is involved in its allocation to the other sectors of the government, mostly based on priority (p.8).

Socialism was created to provide a solution to capitalism that was seen as the contributing factor to the uneven societal life. Socialist ideology and ideas were articulated by Karl Marx although they had earlier been put to practice by Lenin and Stalin in the communist USSR. It was centered on the fact that profit seeking, market competition and labor exploitation was leading the society to poverty (Stiglitz, 2001, p.169). Socialists argued that it was more productive to engage the society in production rather than let them scramble for it. Those who advocated for it only tool into consideration the notion of ideal society without understanding how it worked.

Marx criticized utopian socialism which was a fantasy of socialism. Harman (2010) claims that Marx called for action and not an imagination of how socialism would work without it being instituted (3). The main argument was that socialism could not establish or adjust itself without movement. To aptly support the point brought forward, Marx stated that communism was areal movement that acted to abolish capitalism. Instead of fantasy, Marx instituted and advocated for scientific socialism. Marx avoided the socialism in dreams by stating that, socialism could only be functional if it was composed of action. Utopian socialists differed in ideology with true and active socialism. They differed with socialists who argued that socialism could be realized without class struggle (Martin, 2009). Marx argued that socialism was meant to excite the poor to act violently against the rich governments. Furthermore, this socialist pointed out that the social relations of capitalism were characterized by social hierarchy and private ownership of property that could not function within socialism. Marx not only differed with utopian socialists on their ideologies but on how they described history and society. He cited that utopian socialists made reflective reason and voluntarism the developments motives of history (Marx, 1973, p.26).

Scientific socialism as articulated by Marx called for a scientific upheaval that could open people from economic oppression by setting allowing them the means of creation and taking away the abilities of the governing class and government. This was the only way that could provide every society affiliate the admission to means of mass production, adequate needs and free advance of physical and mental abilities. Scientific socialism according to Marx was the only means that the end of capitalism and politics will be abolished. Marx further predicted that the uncontrolled competition among the capitalists would grow so tight that at the end some capitalists will run out of business due to bankruptcy (FitzGerald, 1985, p.12). This would leave few capitalists who monopolized the means of production in business. Such a decisive notion formed the main point which would bring an end to capitalism.

Raines (2002) also supports the Marx maintained that competition in capitalism led to production of goods, inaccessible to workers and in the long run produced monopoly which was an essential means of exploiting the working class (p.5). He observed that there was a continuous struggle in capitalism among bourgeoisie, those who owned the means of production and the proletariat, the working class. According to Marx, the increasing number of laborers produced huge amounts of goods that they could not access, disturbing the equilibrium of supply and demand, making the market economy prone to economic and financial crises. Increasing proletariats would finally takeover the few continuing capitalists and set a system of socialist production and distribution. The complete capitalist arrangement with its reserved possessions, money, market system, profit maximization and labor exploitation must be eliminated and substituted with a fully organized, self-run economic organization that would bring a whole and absolute end to manipulation and isolation. A socialist insurgency according to Marx was unavoidable (Stiglitz, 2001, p.169). This would mark the realization of active communism and the start of a new era of socialism.

Further, Marx contended that the materialist outset of history started from the suggestion that the creation of the ways to sustain social life and following the invention, the trade of commodities produced was the foundation of all societal organization. This implied that in each society that has existed, the way in which treasure is circulated and community separated into classes is reliant on what is made, how it is made, and how the commodities are traded (Raines, 2002, p.5). From this proposition, the ultimatum reason of all communal variations and governmental upheavals are to be pursued in the economics of every particular period. The proletariat rule in France after the revolutions of 1848 and 1871 left no doubt that the end of capitalism was not a heresy but could happen. Although, it happened differently from what Marx had earlier predicted or theorized, communism was becoming inevitable in the capitalist societies. Not only did Marx conclude that socialist revolution was inevitable but he also recognized that, the proletariat needed to understand the dynamics of economy for them to run it better (Saul, 1986, p.215).

Marx saw the government as aiding the bourgeoisie in maintaining their monopoly over the means of production and the continued exploitation of workers. He emphasized on the need of maturity of capitalism before its take over, but before then, the revolution would only be a development of the bourgeoisie development (Stiglitz, 2001, p.167). Communism would commence an era of societal representation in all sectors of economy and life. This would mean that, the ruling class would have no dominant power over the means of production that led to formation of social classes, political classes and exploitation of workers would be abolished.

Evidently, the ideas of Marx were clearly laid and though of though, communism faced difficulties in the countries that it was practiced. Marx socialist ideology succeeded in influencing some nations to adopt them. For example, in Russia, the renowned leaders adopted the communist ideas proposed by Marx. This was adopted after the democratic movements led the country to anarchy. Its leader dubbed as Lenin incorporated the working poor to undermine the democratic governments. Under the socialist move, the government took control of all the revenue production means (Saul, 1986, p.222). Nonetheless, through terror both Lenin and Stalin succeeded in turning the Soviet Union into a communist republic. Communism was also adopted by other countries like Cuba, China and North Korea. It is however worth noting that communism failed to provide viable answers to capitalism demise. This argument by Marx immensely accrued due to the misunderstanding in allocation of produced commodities. For example, in the Soviet Union some social amenities lacked capital while other unimportant sectors were awarded. Marx ideas on socialism were realistic in the sense that if they could be well applied, countries could realize economic growth and adequate societal life (Raines, 2002, p.6). The failure of socialism was not on the ideology but it was apparently due to the difference in wealth distribution.

The Soviet Union became the first country in the world to adopt socialism as advocated by Marx as a way of life and production. It is believed that Marx rather loosely assembled theory of communism and its ideologies are largely responsible for the formation and the fall of the Soviet authoritarianism (Callinicos, 2010, p.8). Leninism in the Soviet Union was a kind of a faith, campaigning on the need of class rivalry, the authoritarianism of the proletariat and the meditation of absolute power in a firmly organized party that is allegedly the precursor of the radical multitudes. Communism under Lenin was assertive in its resolve to eliminate isolated property and nationalize the ways of manufacture as the initial steps to attaining its eventual aim, the egalitarian society. Marx communist ideas stemmed from the view that scientists should render their services to creation of an egalitarian society that was an advancement of the socialist movements that has started in Europe (Paolucci, 2004, p.619).

Marx communist ideology criticized utopian thought which was the perceived creation of a blueprint in a society and stated that it was a wrong approach to communism and socialism (Stiglitz, 2001, p.169). Indeed, Marx communist vision enshrined political scuffle, suppleness, firmness and modification. The communist ideology according to Marx was four-phased. The first phase according to Marx was the revolution epitomized by class struggle. The phase was flexible and was dependent on historical occurrences. The revolution was to be initiated and won by the working class. The onset of communism in USSR was as a result of the elite creation and not the working class that differed sharply with the Marxism theory. On the other hand, the revolution was to be progressive following a trail left by the capitalists demise. Marx emphasized on waiting for the ripe time to seize and destroy the state by the proletariat. He viewed capitalism as an important ingredient for socialism to take over (Paolucci, 2004, p.624).

Marx argued that it was not right to destroy the existing state mechanisms as they were important in redistribution and in defense against the bourgeoisie. The proletariat needed to convince the population to prevent counter revolution by the bourgeoisie and the middle-class. Marx stated that socialism led to realization of full communism that was first based on the established frameworks of the capitalism and contained high levels of freedom than capitalism (Saul, 1986, p.215). It is evident that the USSR communist leaders violated the Marxist laws and created a rigid and an oppressive dictatorship in the bogus form of communism. In its formation, the Soviet socialism abolished the existing capitalist system that was to provide a historical platform that communism would be based on. In addition, the Soviet proletariat dictatorship remained largely in force (Paolucci, 1989, p.647). Soviet Union remained largely hostile to market economy, private accumulation of wealth, undeserved income, profit making and exploitation of citizens. The Soviet socialism paid great attention to culture as a way of human action and was largely prevented from contamination by western influence. Further, socialism remained opposed to democracy as it was viewed it as a way of human exploitation by the wealthy that used money to coerce voters to vote for them (Lovell, 1989, p.12).

Communism needed time for the prerequisite knowledge to be transformed to action. The Soviet communism not only defied the historical perspective adopted by Marx but also the time frame that was crucial to the formation of a successful communist state. Under Lenin, USSR used the poor agrarian communities to undermine the democratic government that existed. In his quest for power, Lenin brain washed the proletariat into action by using the Marxist ideology. The revolution towards socialism and its development were based on three factors. First, the soviets had an anticipation of a strong redistributive method and communal justice. They did not put into consideration the beneficiaries of the redistributive programme (Lovell, 1989, p.12). Secondly, the soviets had a worldview that the Soviet Union was a super power having delivered the world from the committed by the Nazis and World War II. The third factor was the commitment the nation gave to issues of development and modernization. All these issue and others served as a scape goat to the failing system of communism under Lenin.

In the development of socialism towards communism, Lenin ignored the principle targets of history of the country as precursors towards attaining fully fledged communism (Saul, 1986, p.219). It is rather ironical that, Lenin also ignored the need for capitalism structures as the stepping stoned towards communism. Lenin violated the common features of communists like flexibility, freedom and redistribution based on need to create a dictatorial communist regime flagged by mass killings, oppression and faulty redistributive system. In the postwar periods, classes of various and intricate beneficiaries sprouted as the soviets became enlightened on matters of housing, annuities and holidays among others (Stiglitz, 2001, p.156). Fresh from realizing an economic boom, the leaders mismanaged and run the country through infliction of fear as a way of keeping democracy at bay. The leadership of the Soviet Union under Lenin was characterized by a hierarchical form of a structure with the peal being the leader down to the peasants.

In contrast, the leaders were directly answerable to the hierarchy and not responsible to the people. This created a void in the representation of the people. In other cases, the access to some products was dictated by the status in the hierarchy, denying some soviets some goods. Since money was not such useful, leaders became wealthy by hoarding goods. The Soviet Union was notorious for its human rights violation. It possessed a group of highly trained secretive society called the KGB, which was tasked with suppressing the uprisings of the proletariat created by the regime. The arrival of Brezhnev system at the end of the 1960s, an era called the era of stagnation fashioned a hostile environment to acute and inventive discerning and steered to strengthening of philosophical regulation of society (Paolucci, 2004, p.627).

In conclusion, it is important to note that debates pertaining to the transition to socialism as well as those that address communism have been witnessed over centuries. Most of these debate critically analyze and equally embrace these facets given that they either directly or indirect affect the level of economic, political and environmental activities and the existence of societal members. For instance, democratic coexistence, class struggle, political affiliations and resource distribution materialize to be decisive elements in Marxists assertions. In fact, transition to socialism is perceived and still persists to be a pertinent reality in nations indulged in socialism construction. Therefore, the generalization which might be evidently drawn from these uncertain efforts seems to be at preeminent knowledgeable reflection alongside informed comments as opposed to firm conclusions and defensible affirmations.

Important to note is that the instrumental fundamental framework which Engel and Marx developed could be applied in broad social, political and economic contexts than anyone could ever imagine. The ensuing debates rather assists in expounding and making relevant the understanding of the prevailing conditions and problems within the society that urgently calls for the application of these well-articulated theories.

References

Callinicos, A. 2010. The Manifesto and the Crisis Today. The Communist Manifesto. Bloomsbury, London: Bookmarks.

FitzGerald, E. V. 1985. The problem of balance in the peripheral socialist economy: A conceptual note. World Development, vol. 13(1), pp.5-13.

Harman, C. 2010. The Manifesto and the World of 1848: The Communist Manifesto. Bloomsbury, London: Bookmarks.

Lange, O. 1971. On the policy of transition. Monthly Review, Vol. 22(January), pp.38-44.

Lenin, V. 1918. The state and revolution. The economic basis of the withering away of the state. Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 381-492. Web.

Lovell, S. 2006. Destination in Doubt: Russia since 198911-16. London, UK: Zed Books

Lowy, M. 1986. Mass organization, party, and state: Democracy in the transition to socialism. New York, NY: Monthly Review, pp.264-279.

Marquit, E. 2005. Marxist Forum. Nature, Society & Thought, vol.18 (4), pp.501-502.

Mars, P. 1984. Destabilization and socialist orientation in the English-speaking Caribbean. Latin American Perspectives, vol.42 (summer), pp.83-110.

Martin, S. 2009. Artistic communism  A Sketch. Web.

Martov, J. 1977. Marx and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The State and the Socialist revolution, pp. 49-56.

Marx, K. 1973. Critique of the Gotha Programme. Selected Works, Vol. 3, pp. 26.

Matthews, R. 1986. Sowing dragons teeth: The U.S. war against Nicaragua. NACLA Report on the Americas, vol.20 (July-August), pp.13-38.

Oittinen, V. 2010. Marx in Russia. Socialism and Democracy, vol.24 (3), pp.187-192.

Paolucci, P. 2004. The Discursive Transformation of Marxs Communism in to Soviet Diamat. Critical Sociology, vol.30 (3), pp.617-667.

Raines, J. 2002. Introduction. Marx on Religion. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Saul, J. 1986. The role of ideology in the transition to socialism. Transition and development: Problems of world socialism, pp.212-230.

Stiglitz, J. 2001. Whither Reform?Ten Years of the Transition. In Joseph Stiglitz and the World Bank: The Rebel Within. Ha-Joon Chang Ed. London: Anthem Press: 127-171.

Humans have always thought about the future. Some think of a utopia when they imagine the future, others a dystopia. Some people dream of the day when they would not have to work anymore and would have everything that they could ever want at the touch of a finger, where there is no such thing as scarcity or competition. Others dream of a place where there is no hierarchy anymore, everyone is equal to everyone else. A commonality between many of these dreams is that the future government is better than the current one; only in a true utopian society is the government perfect. In his paper Four Futures, Peter Frase describes four types of post-capitalist futures that society could head towards. Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower embodies one of them: Exterminism, where people constantly compete against each other for scraps and there is no functioning or effective government. Mikhail Bulgakov’s Hear of a Dog is Socialistic.

Parable of the Sower takes place in California in an alternate reality where the government is failing and resources have gotten so scare that people in gated communities have to guard their measly scraps so that outsiders cannot steal them. When the outsiders do manage to get in and kill someone in a fight for resources, getting the police involved is futile: they will just take the money and go. Throughout this novel, Butler mentions that it has gotten to the point where people peddle water. The cost of water has gone up again… Peddlers are being found with their throats cut and their money and their handtrucks stolen. Dad says water now costs several times as much as gasoline. …It’s a lot harder to give up water…You’re supposed to be dirty now. If you’re clean, you make a target of yourself. People think you’re showing off, trying to be better than they are. (Butler 20)

Based on this quote from the story, the reader can see that the city has gotten to the point where even water is something that only the rich can really afford. That if a person is clean, that means that they are rich which means that they are an excellent target for mugging. People peddle water, which is a true sign that the world is becoming a really bad place. Frase points out that if a world gets to such a moment when resources are so scarce that it is not a question of how much to charge, but how much more can use them, then that world is heading towards exterminism.

What if resources and energy are simply too scarce to allow everyone to enjoy the material standard of living of today’s rich?… unable to provide everyone with an arbitrarily high standard of consumption?…if, instead, we remain a society polarized between a privileged elite and a downtrodden mass, then the most plausible trajectory leads to something much darker… exterminism. (Frase). According to Frase, materials that could be considered as necessities in modern times have gotten so scare that there is definitely not enough to provide for the entire population but yet the government still regulates them is a sign that the society is headed towards the exterminism future. As the book progresses from 2024 to 2027, the future keeps getting more and more bleak, supporting that the conclusion of that society is going to be dark.

As conditions deteriorate even further, 2024 turns into 2025 and Lauren’s relatively secure gated community gets broken into multiple times which causes the people to take up arms against everyone, both inside and outside; gone is the trust and here is the shoot first, ask questions later. The outside becomes even worse; people who were lucky enough to have jobs externally are encouraged to be on their guard and in a group or just cease travel between the city and their homes. This marks the final beginning of the end.

Now we have a regular neighborhood watch—a roster of people from every household who are over eighteen, good with guns—their own and others—and considered responsible by my father and by the people who have already been patrolling the neighborhood. Since none of the watchers have ever been cops or security guards, they’ll go on working in pairs, watching out for each other as well as for the neighborhood. They’ll use whistles to call for help if they need it. Also, they’ll meet once a week to read, discuss, and practice martial arts and shoot-out techniques (Butler 65).

Frase says that a failing government is key to achieving such a future. It is even better if the society that is approaching the future is gated off from the rest of the population. “Gated communities, private islands, ghettos, prisons, terrorism paranoia, biological quarantines; together, these amount to an inverted global gulag, where the rich live in tiny islands of wealth strewn around an ocean of misery… “catastrophic convergence” of ecological disruption, economic inequality, and state failure (Frase).” It is evident that the government is corrupt when the police just take the money and not provide their services, and force vigilante justice just for the peace of mind of the people within the community.

As more years pass by, the more society degenerates. A few months into 2026, the new president announces that he is going to make sure that all major cities are going to be like Olivar; run by big companies and will provide every workers with enough money to rent a place to live and feed themselves (Butler 103). However, as someone who has actually lived long enough to know better, Lauren’s father translates the politically correct wording into what it actually means: a new form of slavery. “That’s an old company-town trick—get people into debt, hang on to them, and work them harder. Debt slavery” (Butler 104). As anyone who has ever taken World history knows, nothing good can happen when companies start to treat their workers like property and even worse things happen when the workers cannot quit and continue to sustain themselves. “Once mass labor has been rendered superfluous, a final solution lurks: the genocidal war of the rich against the poor” (Frase 10). Frase’s quote proves that nothing good can come when work does not provide resources, and that is seen a few months later when the outside finally catches up with the gated in community of Robledo.

Towards the end of 2026, Lauren’s father disappears and is assumed dead after a few weeks. Mere months after the funeral in 2027, a fire set by drug addicts ravages her entire community, killing her entire family and almost all of her close friends, and forcing her to grab and go if she wants to live. She ends up reuniting with two other people from her community close to her age and then setting off based on the maps that her grandparents left her. Henry, Zahra, and Lauren set off North, hoping to reach a place where people can find a decent paying job where they will not have to commit any heinous crimes in order to live. Some months into their journey, they run into an old doctor named Bankole, who says that he has land up North where they can all go. After weeks of tortuous walking, faced with multiple obstacles, they finally reach the so called promised land, and they finally realize what kind of future they reached. The book ends with this dialogue between Lauren and Bankole

Human beings will survive of course. Some other countries will survive. Maybe they’ll absorb what’s left of us. Or maybe we’ll just break up into a lot of little states quarreling and fighting with each other over whatever crumbs are left. That’s almost happened now with states shutting themselves off from one another, treating state lines as national borders. As bright as you are, I don’t think you understand—I don’t think you can understand what we’ve lost…“You know, as bad as things are, we haven’t even hit bottom yet. Starvation, disease, drug damage, and mob rule have only begun. Federal, state, and local governments still exist—in name at least—and sometimes they manage to do something more than collect taxes and send in the military. And the money is still good. That amazes me. However much more you need of it to buy anything these days, it is still accepted. That may be a hopeful sign—or perhaps it’s only more evidence of what I said: We haven’t hit bottom yet (Butler 284- 285).

At first glance it appears that Lauren’s group is heading towards communism, but upon further examination, it is evident that as soon as they get everything out of the earth on Bankole’s land and exhaust those resources, they are going to be stuck there forever with no escape and thus why their future is exterminism. People will always be at war with the environment.

Just because there will always be an inherent war between the people and the environment for resources, does not mean that the people within will be at war with each other. Lauren’s vision for Earthseed, the new religion that she is trying to get people to follow, does not really leave any room for internal conflict. She imagines such a world where race and gender do not play a role in anything. A world where no one has to fight anyone in order to live. “an equal distribution of goods and work can ensue; one which is not based on an essentialist perception of the sexes and races, but on a perception of any subject as a site of creative differences that enriches the group (Agusti 359).” Her definition of a utopian future is simply one where there is no active threat against her life every minute of every day. The fact that there would be no internal conflict anymore, only the need for resources, with no interference from any government further proves that the new Earthseed community is heading towards a future of exterminism.

Bulgakov’s story on the other hand is vastly different than Parable of the Sower. While Butler’s book is more of an end of the world as they know it type of story, his story is just plain science fiction, with emphasis on the science. Taking place in the 1920s in the USSR, Heart of a Dog is about taking the human male brain and testis and transplanting them into a dog and seeing what would happen all the while fighting the Russian Revolution and the Russian Intelligent vs the working class. The USSR tried to establish a communist government, in reality, the government was a mix of both socialism and communism. As Kim points out in her article, Bulgakov’s goal was not to romanticize communism but to poke fun at eugenics and the USSR ideology.

In the early 1900s, the people of Russia experienced a political shift towards communism…During that time, Soviet physicians and medical researchers promoted eugenics…They advocated that communistic values and ideals were hereditary traits that could be passed down to future generations and encouraged those who had traits considered desirable to reproduce to improve the Soviet people (Kim)

One of the first interactions in the book where the idea of a future is brought up is when the Professor, Philip Philipovich, is approached by the House Committee because he occupies too much space for one person. “‘But the general meeting, after due consideration of the question, came to the conclusion that, by and large, you occupy too much space. Much too much. You live alone in seven rooms.’ ‘I live alone and work in seven rooms,’ replied Philip Philipovich. (Bulgakov 26-27)”. The Professor’s mindset goes along with the capitalistic agenda: “If I can work/ earn enough to afford this, then I should be able to get it”, whereas, the House Committee ideology is the total opposite. If anything, Frase sums up their thinking in his Socialism section. “The need to control labor still disappears, but the need to manage scarcity remains.”. The professor is still living based on the pre-1917 rules, where people can live based on what they can afford, not what the government tells them to live on, thus it starts showing that he is going from living in a capitalistic society to a socialistic society. The next example happens halfway through the story, when the operation has been successful and Sharik (the dog/ person) is continuously getting more and more humanoid.

Just like any teenager, Sharik (Sharikov as a man) also goes through a rebellious phase, serving as the prime example of the clash of the classes and ideologies of the time. “‘We understand. Of course we are no comrade of yours! How could we be? We never had the benefit of being taught at universities, we never lived in flats with 15 rooms and bathrooms. Only now the time has come to leave all that behind you. At the present time everybody has their rights.’ (Bulgakov 75-76).” Sharikov goes off on a tirade against the Professor because he is tired of him lecturing about how to do everything. However, in the midst of his monologue, he says the most important identifier that their future is socialist. As Frase says “Suppose that everyone received a wage, not as a return to labor but as a human right. The wage would not buy the products of others’ labor, but rather the right to use up a certain quantity of energy and resources as one went about using the replicators.”. Sharikov believes that he is entitled to live in the Professor’s flat because the Professor is the one who created him and according to the Socialistic future, he is.

Against the Professor’s wishes, Sharikov does not grow out of his Socialistic mindset, in fact, his views become even more extreme. Towards the end of the story, Sharikov remarks that he disagrees with Engels and Kautsky, two political philosophers of the time, and that they should just take everything and divide it equally amongst the masses. While his opinions did not really bother the Professor originally, his actions did. While the Professor understood that he was still developing mentally, he was appalled that Sharikov would have the gall as to file a complaint to the government against him.

Likewise threatening to kill the chairman of the house committee Comrade Shvonder from which it is clear that he is in possession of a gun. And he pronounces counterrevolutionary speeches and even orders his social servant Zinaida Prokofievna Bunina to bum Engels in the stove, which proves him a typical Menshevik together with his assistant Bormental, Ivan Arnoldovich, who secretly and without registration lives in his flat. Signature of the Head of the Sub-Department of Pest Control P. P. Sharikov witnessed by the Chairman of the House Committee Shvonder and the secretary Pestrukhin. (Bulgakov 129-130).

The fact that a heated argument resulted in the Professor being visited by someone very high up in the government about a complaint made by a former dog shows just how far the future has departed from the present in the story. Conflicts between locales, between generations, between those who are more concerned with the long-term health of the environment and those who prefer more material consumption in the short run — none of these will be easy to solve. But we will at least have arrived on the other side of capitalism as a democratic society (Frase 9).

These examples show that the new future of Moscow in Heart of a Dog is socialistic because it is not just pay for what one wants/ can but take what one is given no matter how much one actually works or earns. This conflict can really be considered as ironic because the Professor, who is very much against the socialist agenda, has created a man who is the definition of it. “While the Professor is the very incarnation of good taste, refinement, and intellect, Sarikov exhibits shabbily ostentatious taste and aggressively stupid intellectual pretensions. While attempting to create something better than the low-grade humanity that surrounds (and threatens) him, the Professor has unwittingly given the “Soviet dogs” entree into his private world of taste and intelligence (Burgin 503)”, no wonder that towards the end of the book, Sharikov had gone from the Professor’s pride and joy to his regret.

Though both stories are science fiction, they are vastly different from each other. One shows what could happen if the world goes through an extreme environmental disaster that limits every single resource out there. The other presents the traditional class conflict with a twist. Parable of the Sower is about a post-apocalyptic world where everyone fights against everyone else for mere scraps in order to survive and is heading towards a future that is not any better. A future of exterminism where even if money is not a problem, finding the actual resources is. On the other side, Bulgakov’s Heart of a Dog is about a scientist switching around a part of the brain and the testis between a human male and a dog in order to see what will happen meanwhile introducing the traditional class conflict in a new light. The Professor represents the old Russian Intelligent people while Sharikov represents the new working class who think that the new government, socialism, will solve all of their problems and let them live a better life.

Collectivisation was an essential economic component of Stalin’s Great Turn and the success of Socialism in One Country, aiming to increase production efficiency to support heavy industrialisation while moving towards a more Marxist society. However, the degree to which this can be considered successful may be different depending on the perspective: political, economic or social. Moreover, there is debate among historians as to whether this was the ‘correct’ move for Stalin, as though Davies asserts that it was necessary considering his aims, Cohen argued that continued NEP would be more successful.

One cannot argue that collectivisation, and the Great Turn itself, was a political success considering what had gone before: the divisive NEP. In fact, it was so divisive that it forced Lenin’s resolution ‘On Party Unity’ in 1921 which banned factionalism within the party. NEP was seen as a right-wing concession, since it promoted a free market, which came to be dominated by independent traders or ‘Nepmen’, who controlled ¾ of the trade. Additionally, NEP was slow to take effect, as by 1928 real wages only just surpassed pre-war levels, and exports were 1/3 of those in 1913. This supports Davies’ viewpoint that NEP was not able to support heavy industrialisation as the exports were not enough to gain capital investment into industry, making the choice to ditch this a success. There was one further advantage, to Stalin himself, of the policy of moving away from NEP: an issue over which to isolate and defeat the Rightists within the party; Bukharin had lost key positions by April 1929, including his editorship of Pravda. All of these factors led to a more secure political standing for Stalin, by removing opposition and approaching more traditional Marxist ideology, making this policy a political success as a move away from NEP.

Furthermore, as well as an alternative to NEP, collectivisation had further merits in its socialisation of the peasantry. Firstly, this policy helped to reduce the size of the peasantry, particularly the ‘class enemy’ of kulaks. The peasants did not really fit in Marx’s society and were naturally conservative and held support for the prerevolutionary regime, so 19 million peasants moving to the cities was beneficial since it reduced the size of this section of society, and also increased the proportion of the proletariat. Moreover, 390,000 kulaks, and their relatives lost their lives in camps as a result of the purges of the 1930s, ridding Russia of so-called ‘capitalist elements’. Instead of independent farmers looking out for their own interests, collectivisation attempted to socialise the peasants by making them live on kolhozes, to farm a communal plot of land with 75 other families, and with modern machinery, with food being distributed according to how much they worked. 100% of farms were collectivised by 1941. This attempted to create a ‘proletariat of the countryside’, more in keeping with socialist ideals, so this was a further political success of this policy as greater progress towards a Marxist state.

Additionally, collectivisation found some success economically too. Grain production slowly increased after the policy began, from 73 million tons in 1928 to 97 million in 1937; the greater procurement of grain from 10.8 million tons in 1928 to 22.6 million in 1933 also shows a political as well as economic success, since it showed a greater progress towards a socialist centralised command economy. This also contributed towards further economic success as this meant more grain could be exported to support the Five Year Plans, as exports increased from 0.03 million tons in 1928 to 5.06 million in 1931, increasing industrialisation and thus creating an independent nation capable of supporting itself in the event of a war, as well as becoming more socialist, thus this policy had economic success.

However, the economic success must not be exaggerated: the grain production only increased after a sharp decline after 1928 due to peasant opposition. As a display of this opposition, they left 50% of crops in the fields and 25-30% of livestock were slaughtered, as they would rather do this than hand over their property to the state. Livestock numbers did not recover until 1953, and grain production not until 1935. The lack of incentive also hampered the scheme, with high quotas meaning peasants had little for themselves or to sell, so had no reason to work hard, while the industrial workers imported from the cities to oversee collectivisation had no expertise in the agricultural field. This was compounded by the fact that the most skilled farmers were kulaks, and Stalin was committed to their ‘liquidation as a class’, though they were responsible for 38% of production. Indeed, Cohen argues that the continuation of Bukharinist support for the kulaks would have brought more success. The lack of expertise and opposition created huge inefficiencies within the collectivisation program, when this policy was created to remove inefficiency, so this cannot be considered a real economic success.

Moreover, the social cost of this policy was appalling. As already mentioned, 390,000 kulaks and relatives were killed from 1932 to 1940, but even greater numbers were involved. 10 million died as a direct result of their own opposition to the collective farms; 3.5 million died from famine in the Ukrainian Holodomor. Though 19 million peasants moved to towns (which as much may be indicative of the social cost than economic success), movement away from famine-stricken areas was prevented, meaning that ‘cannibalism became commonplace’ in these districts. Harsh penalties were also in force for minor offences: 10 years imprisonment was given to anyone ‘stealing socialised property’ or selling grain before their quota was fulfilled. Ultimately, this decreased the unity between the cities and countryside and was a move away from Marxist equality, so this was arguably both a social and political failure.

To conclude, through collectivisation, the aims of Socialism in One Country were ultimately achieved: heavy industrialisation took place making Russia ready for war in 10 years. It was also, on paper, a great move away from the capitalist NEP and towards a Marxist society. However the social reality of this could hardly be further from this utopian vision, with the social cost outweighing the limited economic success and theoretical political advances.

Political ideology is a fixed or settled set of ethical ideas, principles or foundation for a system, doctrines about the political, economic, social and cultural affairs held by the people and explains how the society should work on, how to allocate power and on what extent it should be used. The man has an ideal thing that has to be fill in and that is called necessities. There are things that we need to comply for ourselves and things that the government should work to provide for the citizens of its country.

As a citizen of this country, I have to provide my basic needs and personal wants to survive my everyday lives. On the side of the governing body, they should provide security from internal and external threats in our lives and properties, and have a safe exchange of goods and ideas with its citizen. To achieve social change, both must comply. The citizen must be responsible and be flexible to allow when there is changes in political structure, while the government must comply to their platforms. But what if the two doesn’t working anymore because of the poor system? Is there any solutions we need to recommend?

Many of them have mixed economies, so there are incorporation between socialism with capitalism, communism or bot. If I will apply this ideology in our system, we will adjust because of transition. It’s normal to adjust especially of we want a change in society. So from democratic country, a constitutional republic where the representatives are elected by the people within the country, rules and law are written in the constitution, the state and the government of the country is headed by the president, to democratic socialism where there is also democratically elected government, but the means of production are managed by the working people. For example, government and individual can hold a property, but there is limitation. They can hold only what is allowable for them. For the workers, they are the one who are deciding how long they will work according to their own needs, and they have the right to speak on management’s decision. Under economic planning, there is central planning where it discusses the problems of an economy and how will they take an action. They are not just giving an idea how to resolve such problems. They study it intensively and thoroughly before applying the solution on the problem. I think this is one of the problem of our country. Trying to resolve a problem but nothing happened. In socialism, there is no competition because the factors of production are owned by everyone, the attribute of the citizen is according to their ability and everyone will benefit based on their contributions.

Government control the distribution of goods, mass transit or transportation that is available for the use of public, housing where the social and regional differences in housing conditions. That’s why government plays a significant role in decision making. These are just a few features of socialism.

Just like what I’ve said, government plays significant role because they are the operating machine in each country. No one will say ‘Ang mayaman ay lalong yumayaman, at ang mahirap ay lalong naghihirap’ because everyone will be equal through producing and distributing the wealth and power to everyone. Although there are many that will attack this ideology, it won’t matter if it’s executed well by the government.

Let’s start by introducing capitalism; capitalism supports the idea of private property, believes society can do better when an individual is able to purchase and produce as they please. On the other hand, socialism is the theory that property ownership should be controlled by government, and that the government can do more with the assets than individuals are able to. I for one do not think society should run in a pure socialism or a pure capitalism, I believe that a proper society works best by using bits and pieces of both forms of governments. To help you better understand my stance between capitalism and socialism, it is would be very helpful to have some knowledge on the differences, advantages and disadvantages of both systems.

The difference between capitalism and socialism are far greater than one would expect. Capitalism is a system that allows each person to have the right to have their own wealth. Capitalism labels that you can invest your own money in someone else’s business; this system in one condensed statement is all about freedom and one’s individual rights, everyone can do whatever they want to do. On the other hand, socialism is a system where the government owns everything and that the individual owns nothing. You do not get to have your own money and you are not paid to work. Your own home is the government’s property. In this system the government gets all the wealth that is produced by all the people in their country, and with all the input of money they give a smaller output to give the people houses and food. This system provides no incentive to do your best or be creative, rather just live. To wrap up socialism in one little sentence this system is classified as individuals being locked in a cell.

Advantages within these two classes are quite simple and easy to comprehend. Capitalism has the advantage of providing greater incentives for individual labor and further achievements. Socialism works to offset these shortcomings by redistributing some of the excess wealth that is created from the top back down to the lower classes. This can work to increase demand for goods, and for labor. This is a great way of helping to correct the unbalanced lifestyles, as well as helping to maintain the basic welfare of the lower classes. Ideally ensuring that they are able to overcome any hardships and continue to put both their labor and wealth back into the economy.

Between both of these two systems of living, a few disadvantages exist. The disadvantage in capitalism is that those at that top will always be wealthy beyond what may in fact be fair. At times they may exclude those at the bottom from participation in large scale economies, in times where technological capacities and lowered demand for goods leads to surplus labor. Now within socialism lie a couple of disadvantages. First is the concern that by ensuring the survival of the lower classes under any and all circumstances, you may remove any motivation to contribute their labor at all. Secondly, there is the concern that the ruling bodies that create these programs of redistribution will tend to allocate wealth in such a way that it simply flows to them, rather than the upper class which it originally was taken from, or the lower classes it was supposed to help. The underlying problem with any economic system is simply that human nature will always cause wealth to accumulate at the feet of those who have the most power, and that no system of government yet conceived can genuinely distribute control in a way such that everybody has exactly the amount they genuinely need and deserve.

20th Century was a new era in the world history and it was an era that differs in many aspects from other centuries by including two major wars (WW1 and WW2) and Great Depression. The modernization movement and industrialization which came with the Enlightenment Era in the 18th century stressed the concepts of human rights, freedoms, democracy and independence. However, also this modernity created a negative atmosphere with wars in the 20th century. The living conditions of individuals were developed by the new technologies, recognition of the right to vote for women, establishment of new democracies etc. On the other hand authoritarian leaders, repressive regimes, wars, economic declines, racist ideologies were affected the world order. This is a questionable phenomenon about the results of the modernity.

National Socialism is also a product of turbulent atmosphere of the 20th century. Sauer seems Nazism as a ‘’disease of modern society’’. Features of more emphasis on ethnicity, constructing the nation-state as a latecomer, conservativeness of the regime distinguish the concept of nationalism in National Socialism from nationalism in French Revolution. In addition to that, the characteristics of opportunist structure, desire to turn to natural life, antisemitic traits and the use of propaganda as a tool for political aims differentiate National Socialism from liberal democracies. Because of the different characteristics of the National Socialism, different approaches used in referring it: mainly Fascism and Totalitarianism. Some scholars classified National Socialism as totalitarianism (like Russia, Stalin) and the others classified as fascism (like Italy, Mussolini). The definitions of both regimes somehow share similar characteristics but they also have dissimilarities and they stress different sides of the regimes. ‘’The theories of fascism, Germanism, and totalitarianism coexisted to a degree from the outset.’’

In this context, this paper will analyze how National Socialism is addressed through fascism and totalitarianism by different scholars.

Scholars answer the question of ‘what is national socialism’ differently. Some thinks that National Socialism is a type of fascism, others think totalitarianism and some classify it as original to German society with respect to its intellectual historical background. Hannah Arendt (1953) takes National Socialism as a form of totalitarianism and she makes socio-political arguments and psychological explanations in her article. She mainly focused on the period after 1933. Instead of thinking national socialism as an unique product of German history like thinkers stand up for Germanism, she takes national socialism as a ‘’novel form of government’’ by analyzing its elements called ideology and terror which grants government an ability to form the individuals that they live in. She defines totalitarian government as ‘’the alternative between lawful and lawless government, between arbitrary and legitimate power.’’ Arendt (1953:306). ‘’If lawfulness is the essence of non-tyrannical government and lawlessness is the essence of tyranny, then terror is the essence of totalitarian domination’’ Arendt (1953:310). This can be explained by the anarchical order of the Hitler Regime. SS had the opportunity to judge individuals. The anarchical order and chaos also create fear in the public.

‘’What totalitarian rule needs to guide the behavior of its subjects is a preparation to fit each of them equally well for the role of executioner and the role of victim. This two-sided preparation, the substitute for a principle of action, is the ideology.’’ Arendt (1953:315). In that manner, totalitarian state is different from any other repressive regimes with its tools. It is a control over individuals and so called ‘total domination’. Terror is in between lawfulness and lawlessness. By imposing a fear in society with terror and focusing on the totalitarian ideology to eradicate alternative ways of thinking in order to explain and understand the world, totalitarianism aims to create lonely and insecure individuals. This is not like a solitude. Solitude is good for production, it is mainly prefer to be alone to increase creativity and production. ‘’Loneliness is not solitude. Solitude requires being alone where- as loneliness shows itself most sharply in company with others.’’ Loneliness is the result of destruction of the line between private and public, people became passive individuals that don’t think about the system, social order, governance etc. On the one hand, in terms of ideology Sauer (1967) talks about the insufficiency to use totalitarianism to understand Nazi regime even explaining their ideology. ‘’Even in the case of Nazi ideology, we know more about its roots and its propaganda system than about its structure and its functional role in the social system.’’ Merely totalitarianism is not enough to explain Nazi ideology and historical background according to Sauer.

Terror and ideology are essential elements of totalitarianism also used by Hitler to control the individuals and to turn back to the Law of Nature which is opposed to modernism. All these features that are used by totalitarianism create difference from tyranny, dictatorship. Also Arendt seems Russia as totalitarian regime. Sauer who classifies National Socialism as fascism criticizes this approach by analyzing the differences between fascism and Bolshevism. ‘’Neither V.I. Lenin nor Joseph Stalin wished to turn the clock back; they do not merely wished to move ahead, but they wished to jump ahead. The Bolshevik revolution had many elements of a development revolution not unlike those who under way in the underdeveloped countries.’. The willingness of turning back to the Law of Nature, idealizing the lives of farmers and traditional ones are peculiar to Hitler’s Germany. ‘’The social and political order of Bolshevism is relatively independent from leadership; it is so speak, more objective. Fascist regimes, by contrast, are almost identical with their leaders; no fascist regime has so far survived its leader.’’

If Stalin’s Russia is totalitarianism, Hitler’s Germany cannot be totalitarian regime because of the dependency of its authoritarian leader. Sauer (1967) puts Nazism into three categories with defining the borders of the categories by WW2 and Cold War. He mainly explains these periods by non-Marxist and fascist perspective. In the first phase, fascism was examined with a Marxist approach by scholars but this perspective changed. Fascism was seemed as a domination by major firms, companies etc. in terms of Marxist perspective. ‘’Fascism was the representative of the lower middle class.’’ On the other hand, Sauer thinks that it is a capitalist movement but not indigenous to lower-middle class. ‘’Fascism is a political practice appropriate to the mass politics of the twentieth century.’’

It is a mass movement with the great contribution of lower-middle class according to Sauer. ‘’ It may even be said that a distinct interest group was formed within the fascist mixture by what might be called the military desperadoes, veterans of the First World War and the postwar struggles, who had not been reintegrated into either the civilian society or the armed forces.’. Capitalists, aristocrats, workers and desperadoes are the supporters of the movement. Fascism came into scene as power unity of losers. After WW1, the military force, desperadoes turned back and they did not engage in society as they did before. Lower-middle class also needed desperadoes to use their power against government. They acted all together to dictate their political aims. Sauer also draw an explanation about National Socialism and defined it as fascism that peculiar to Germany.

The modernization and industrialization process of Germany is essential to understand the fascist movement in Germany. Sauer also tries to find an answer to the question that ‘Is fascism reactionary or revolutionary?’ According to him it is both reactionary and revolutionary. It is not merely based on elites, it is a movement of masses. That is why it can be seen as revolutionary. On the other hand, the desire to turn back to the Law of Nature like Arendt (1953) mentions is reactionary. It is a paradoxical situation. ‘’A revolutionary mass movement whose goals were antirevolutionary in the classical sense.’’ However, Griffin seems the movement ‘’as a revolutionary form of nationalism bent on mobilizing all ‘healthy’ social and political energies…’’.

Paxton (1998) refuses to classify National Socialism as totalitarianism and also he refuses to examine it with the wide fascist perspective. ‘’ Yet great difficulties arise as soon as one sets out to define fascism. Its boundaries are ambiguous in both space and time.’’ Mussolini’s Italy that was not as obsessed as Hitler’s Germany in terms of Jewish population cannot be classified in the same fascist category. It is hard to define fascism in terms of timing because Germany is latecomer into the world scene compared to other countries like France, England, Italy etc. Also in order to mobilize the masses and to be powerful, states might be create a fascist image. It doesn’t mean that they have fascist regimes. Fascisms are compatible with their nations. There was no ideological principles or doctrine for Fascism. All of them makes harder to interpret National Socialism in a wide understanding of fascism.

He made a distinction between stages of fascism: “(1) the initial creation of fascist movements; (2) their rooting as parties political system; (3) the acquisition of power; (4) the exercise of power; and, finally, in the longer term,(5) radicalization or entropy.” As a result of the these stages, he distinguished the differences and similarities between fascist regimes and he founds that fascisms are similar in terms of their functionality. Paxton (1998) There is no separation in between reactionary or revolutionary specific to National Socialism in his work, but he draws a conclusion by emphasizing active feature of fascisms that is specific to essence of the regime. His explanation is not based on economic features or classes like Sauer (1967) explains non-Marxist fascism.

Griffin also explains National Socialism with fascism. But instead of defining it with the negative phrases like anti-communist, anti-democratic, anti-liberal etc., he defines fascism as ‘’it is the capacity of the new state to induce the regeneration of the nation’s political culture…’’. He defines it as cultural revolutionary movement compared to Sauer’s explanation based on socio-economic factors mainly derived from interest seeking behavior of lower- middle class and military desperadoes.

Paxton (1998) establishes the similarity between fascist regimes with respect to their functionality instead of their way of using propaganda, symbols etc. Griffin (2004) establishes the similarity with the term of ‘palingenesis’ that means new birth, rebirth or national rebirth.

According to him fascist regimes can be different because of the historical path they took but they have the core element called palingenesis. ‘’What informs fascism’s actions and provides a degree of coherence to its ideology in its various spheres of policy and various national permutations is the utopia of the ‘palingenesis’ (rebirth or new birth) of the national community brought about through the total transformation and regeneration of its political culture.’’ He also seems National Socialism as a unique form of fascism with its ultra-nationalist characteristics. Paxton (1998) also mentions about the ‘mimics of fascism’ in his article and he claims that states can be seem to be fascist in order to create a powerful image.

At this point, Griffin gives a distinction point for fascism and the other repressive regimes, para-fascisms. He thinks that cohesion of ultra-nationalism and palingenesis helps us to differentiate National Socialism from other types of fascism. ‘’Fascism’s definitional core (fascist minimum) is best seen in terms of revolution, rebirth and modernity has gradually emerged out of decades of intense controversy that often produced more heat than light, a period of confusion leading most historians to give the term a wide berth in studies of inter-war Europe and, in particular, of Nazism.’’ Griffin (2004:3). Michael Mann (2004) also accepts National Socialism as fascism. According to Mann (2004), there should be five important features to classify a regime as fascism: organic nationalism, statism, transcendence, cleansing and paramilitarism. Organic nationalism is based on homogeneity and interests of certain group like opponents, certain ethnic groups. Statism is mainly seeing the state above everything. Paramilitarism is essential for creating violence in order to pursue the group interests. Transcendence brings explanation in terms of classes in society.

This is an explanation unlike Sauer’s (1967) non-Marxist fascist explanation. Cleansing also affects the creation of violence. He defines fascism as a negative manner with its negative features. Unlike Griffin (2004), he defined fascism as anti-Catholic, antiliberal and anti-capitalist. Mann criticizes Griffin also in terms of his definition of fascism in terms of construction of power in the society and social relations. He defines fascism in terms of economy, politics, ideological background and military. “Fascism is the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism”. As Hannah Arendt mentions in her article, terror is important to sake of Nature and History, violence is also important in Mann (2004) to attain the interests of the certain group. In that manner, paramilitarism and cleasing creates a fear in the society like Hannah Arendt’s terror creates insecure and lonely individuals. Mann explains the supporters of the fascist regime by class theory. Sauer (1967) don’t reduce the supporters of the National Socialist regime by just counting lower-middle class. Also Mann (2004) adds civil servants into the category of supporters of fascism.

Also he mentions about the disposition of the classic petite bourgeoise to support the National Socialist regime. ‘’ By the bottom-up organization of the fascist paramilitary powers, fascists gain both important power and popularity.’’ He seems National Socialism as a movement of the masses like other scholars that I mentioned above did. The conclusion that Mann (2004) draws does not explain the authoritarian, irrational, sociological and psychological characteristics of such movements. ‘’More recently, with the growing disappointment in the strictly Marxist explanation of history, psychology itself with its new Freudian concepts of super- ego, father-image, and oedipus complex, has invaded the social sciences and continues to provide them with their chief tools of ‘evaluation’ to such an extent that it has become difficult to tell the two sciences from each other.

Briefly, economic, class based Marxist explanations are not enough to explain irrationality of individuals. Compared the all scholars I mentioned above, Mann (2004) brings a wider explanation by looking at economic, political features of the regime and defining it with statism, paramilitarism, cleansing, transcendence, organic nationalism.

Understanding National Socialism is a debatable phenomenon with its- uniquenessto German society, in terms of the wider definition of the terms that use for an explanation of it, difficulty of limiting the time and space to understand its historical path and difficulty of differentiation from its imitations etc. Also some scholars take fascism in terms of an ideology and the others focus on the characteristic of the regime. All in all, scholars came with different perspectives like Fascism, Totalitarianism and Germanism. In this paper, I mainly focus on the differences between fascism and totalitarianism. Totalitarian approach explains National Socialism with two-terms; ideology and terror. Totalitarianism was popular in between 1933-1945.

On the other hand, scholars that use fascism to -explain-National Socialism did not restrict themselves in the period of 1933-1945. Fascist approaches bring different explanations even if they defend the same notion. Mann defined Fascism with the negative notions, Griffin mentioned its positive contribution to the culture. Sauer found fascism as both revolutionary and reactionary on the other hand Griffin emphasized its revolutionary features. Mann used rational perspective to understand National Socialism, Hannah Arendt who uses totalitarian perspective stressed the importance of psychology and sociology to understand the regime. But all scholars simply argue that National Socialism is a mass movement even if it uses different political tools to attain its goals. It is also a product of modernity. All claims are essential to analyze and understand this historical phenomenon.

In the following essay it will be explored the lengths women had to go through in order to rise their role in the social, political and economical life so that they could obtain or try to reach a similar status as men; the reason why women feel to fight against law will be explained in the upcoming paragraphs. It will be also examined the stereotypical behaviour of men and women through the ages, starting from the Ancient Romans up to the contemporary ages, and how this generalizations will push them to achieve equality. Gender roles in society mean that, based on our biological gender, we were indeed expected to act, speak, dress, groom and act differently. For example, girls and women are commonly supposed to dress and also to be polite, welcoming, and fostering in traditionally feminine cases. Broadly speaking, males are supposed to be tough, aggressive, and audacious.

There are expectations of gender roles in every society, ethnic group and culture, but they can vary from one cultural ethnicity to another. For example the color pink has always been seen as feminine color and the color blue as a male one. A stereotype is a well-established judgment based or bias regarding an individual or group, though it might be overly generalized and perhaps not accurate. Gender stereotype can lead to discriminatory and unequal treatment because of sex. This way of acting is know as sexism. Introducing the first point which is women and their unequal treatments, states the fact that women should be at the same level of men, not only because of all they have fought for, but the fact that men have always been seen superior and never had to fight to obtain something; for example, the Islamic law states that men and women have different rights and obligations, indeed men are seen such as the “dominant” figure of the family and society. This male-centered society can be seen not only in the Islamic world, but also in Western society, as many movies highlight this inequality between females and males.

In ancient times nearly every culture thought that women should be subjugated by men. Starting from the “patriarchal family”, in fact the ancient Romans, Greeks and Persians lived under this impression and belief. In the year 200 a.C. it was proposed by the feminists of that time to abolish the law that repealed women to own more than one piece of gold, to wear colorful clothing etc., they didn’t succeed due to the male-dominant culture. The “feminist” movement of those times, in ancient Rome started the first movement to defend their rights. In the medieval ages the figure of the women changed, thanks to those intellectuals that would get involved in long discussions on whether the women could be comparable to men, meaning that it would have a soul or it was more similar to animals. This presumptuous inferiority of women was stated also by the law.

During the Renaissance the social status of women didn’t evolve, but those who were part of the higher ranks managed to reach the highest level of education, these were only rear occasions, thus women would have to wait century still to see some equity in the rights. The feminist movement has always been present and a pressing matter, also in modern and contemporary times. This movement saw the light of the day in France during the French Revolution. The term “female vote” indicates the right to vote extended to women. The political movement with the aim of extending suffrage to women has historically been that of the suffragettes. The modern origins of the movement are to be found in 18th-century France. The first European state to recognize universal suffrage was the Grand Duchy of Finland, with the first women elected to parliament in 1907. In Russia during the revolutionary provisional government in November 1917, elections were held for the constituent assembly to Universal suffrage.

The right to vote for women was introduced into international law in 1948 when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Women also began fighting for change within society in the United Kingdom, supported from the outset by the work of women leaders in women’s rights, such as John Stuart Mill when in 1869 he published his book “The Subjection of Woman” of John Stuart Mill published in 1869 this essay identifies how women are unequal to men in the society. He proposed the idea of ​​female suffrage in a program presented to voters in the United Kingdom in 1865 and was later joined by numerous men and women, ready to fight for the same cause. Mill’s book has led British women to fight for this gender gap. A suffragette was a passionate supporter of militant feminist organizations in the early 20th century that fought for the right to vote in public elections, known as female suffrage, under the banner “Votes for Women”. ​The suffragette movement, as a national movement seeking female suffrage, only saw the light in the United Kingdom in 1869. It was therefore from this date that it was possible to speak, for all intents and purposes, of suffragettes, because only then did a movement take place national to claim the right to vote, still unacknowledged, which led in 1897 to the formation of the National Society for women’s suffrage. ​In 1903 a feminist political party rose, fought against the male centered society with public manifestations and rallies in order to obtain the right to vote. However, only in 1928, the Government had decided to make into act the law called “the representation of people act”, which gave women the authority to vote in municipal elections. After this big innovation, women started to see some other changes in the way society saw them (in a positive way) and started obtaining concrete importance in the social life. Going back to the roles of women and men, and how movies represent them, Mary poppins (1964) is for sure one of those. This Disney cartoon is closely affiliated with the feminist movement due to the fact that it is centered on women as protagonists and on the Suffragette.

Indeed, the wife of the male protagonist, Mrs Banks stands up to the Patriarchal figure who is her husband, and she is also the leader of the suffragette movement. In one of the first scenes, Mrs Banks marches in the house with her housekeepers urging them to rebel against that society that considered women as “objects”; furthermore it is visible the prints of feminism in Mary Poppins movie, indeed, Mrs Banks also encourages the housekeepers to sing the slogan of the feminist movement. Nevertheless, even though the wife starts this revolt, Mary Poppins is the one who personifies the most the feminist movement. Mary Poppins doesn’t follow the rules, she only goes by what she wants and feels right for her. She is the one that stands up to the “boss” of the household, Mr Banks. The most known scene of the movie is also the main one for the incarnation of the feminist movement: when Ms. Poppins flies away is the symbolic meaning of her freedom from that repressed society. Mary Poppins movie demonstrates how women rebelled during the years in order to try to be at the same level of men; it is fascinating that disney movies, which are meant to be for children, are always part of a larger scale, and examine a issues that is nowadays very common.

Another exposed issue in Mary Poppins cartoon, is the socialism. Socialism is a political concept based on equality in the juridical and social-economical field. In the movie we can see how socialist philosophy is seen through the movie. During the whole length of the movie is very visible that women are repressed and kept in the house, and it is also noticeable the different social classes and the different roles that each one plays in society. Mary poppins comes and “saves the day”, by helping the family with her “magical” powers and with her unconventional way of being for those times she states that women as not less important than men and that they should be responsible for more instead of only being accountable of taking care of family and home duties. ​Marxists, like feminists, struggle to end oppression of women, even though they view this struggle as part of a more comprehensive struggle against all forms of oppression. Already in the first half of the nineteenth century, the utopian socialist Flora Tristan emphasized how the struggle for women’s emancipation is inextricably linked to the class struggle. Marx and Engels included some of Tristan’s ideas in the Communist Manifesto, and Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, uses anthropological evidence to explain the origins of oppression on women and how this oppression can be overcome . Marxism has provided, for the first time, a scientific materialistic basis not only for socialism but also for the cause of women’s liberation. Marxism has explained the role of the family within a society divided into classes as an economic contract and in its primary function of perpetuating capitalism and the oppression of women.

He opened the path of women’s liberation. In this way Marxism has eliminated the utopian character of socialism and of the struggle for the emigration of women, demonstrating that capitalism itself generates strength, the proletariat, powerful enough to destroy it. Marx says that ‘If the immediate effects (of the work of children and women) are terrible and repugnant, at the same time it contributes to giving women, young people and children of both sexes an important part in the production process outside the environment domestic and in the creation of new economic bases necessary for a higher form of family and relations between the two sexes.

Socialism, on the other hand, allows the socialization of domestic work and prevents exploitation through wage labor, as was shown in Russia after 1917. In other words, the struggle for socialism eliminates the material basis of gender oppression. This struggle can be carried out only by the working class as a whole, thanks to its fundamental role in production: therefore Marxists participate in the class struggle, intervening in the movements and mass organizations of workers and young people, to put an end to exploitation of the proletariat and oppression of women.

But such methods do nothing but turn the problem upside down: it is not male dominance in mass organizations that fuels gender oppression – it is the sexist prejudice inherent in class society that leads to such dominance. The unions, uniting the working class, can be used to destroy class society and are therefore a means of eliminating the oppression of women. Creating a model of ideal union, ‘pure’ and free from sexist prejudices, cannot be an end in itself – in reality such a model of union can never exist as long as society as a whole is not fundamentally changed. ​These and other practical successes of Marxism on the question of gender oppression constitute an inseparable link between the labor movement and thestruggle for socialism. As Marx and Engels underline: ‘The history of every society that has existed up until now is a story of class struggle’. The working woman in capitalism is subjected to different levels of oppression. On an economic level, a woman’s salary is normally lower than that of man and the secular domestic confinement means that many of our working sisters are totally dependent on man economically, a condition that hinders any attempt at emancipation. Receiving worse wages women generate greater surplus value for the entrepreneur, with the result that, as we said before, the increasing access of women to the world of work is the result of a need of the system and not of the destruction of gender barriers. That is, what was presented to us by bourgeois feminism as the economic ’emancipation’ of women is nothing but the clear example of wage slavery within the capitalist system that working women suffer more than men. Only socialism will break economic inequality between working woman and man. In a classless society, in which the system has the mission of securing the needs of the working class, women’s dependency relationships are destroyed. Only in socialism can we therefore have the economic emancipation of women: not being bound either by the threat of unemployment or by man’s maintenance, the woman is really free to develop her life as she wishes. But this is the consequence of the new relations of production in socialism, where the working class controls the political and economic power of the state that it needs to continue to gradually destroy all the aberrations of the ancient capitalist society. Therefore it is socialism that will guarantee real equality and the emancipation of the working woman. Socialism will determine the end of inequality between man and woman in terms of wages, hence the need for the working woman to fight doubly against capitalism: as a worker and as a woman.

The women’s movement aimed at achieving equality with men not only from a political point of view but also from a legal and economic point of view. Women wanted to be able to teach equality of civil rights in high schools, carry out the same professions as men and above all enjoy electoral or suffrage rights, a term from which the name used to indicate the participants in the movement is derived : Suffragettes. To conclude socialists and feminists wanted to obtain the same rights and fought against society in order to be at the same level of men for women and for socialists class ranks wise. Women have come a long way since they first started fighting for their rights, but there still are countries in which women are seeing as inferior of men and they are still fighting in order to gain the same level of importance in society as men.