I stand on the left side of the political spectrum so I am attracted to a more liberal political philosophy, whereby the primary emphasis was placed on limiting governmental involvement in all aspects of society. However, as I have gotten to know the world more, I have started to see that state intervention is necessary in order to steer society in the direction of equality.
Over the last several years, I have started to reject classical and conservative ideas, because I came to believe education was the most crucial part of a growing society. This essay will explain how and why I believe in social democratic ideas. In my ideal society, there is no interference of the state when it comes to business. However, the ultimate aim of democratic socialism is “protection and promotion of each person’s equal opportunity to develop his potentialities as fully as possible (Malleson, 2014, p. 230)”. This is why I favor government interference in sectors such as education and health care. Social democrats favor electoral politics, with a system of civil liberties and elections under a so-called “representative democracy”. I believe that this system is a good way of governance as it benefits all people. After careful consideration of strengths and weaknesses related to conservative and social politics, I have decided that the best ideology for me is democratic socialism.
This ideology is defined as having a market economy in which “the means of production are controlled to a degree, alongside a politically democratic system of government (Malleson, 2014, p. 230)”. Social democracy is the system many European countries have, which relies on free-market capitalism combined with regulations to protect its citizens from the excesses of capitalism. Capitalism is fundamentally a positive force. But we should also be wary of large corporations, as they can gain a lot of market power through consolidation and political power via lobbying. That is why we need the government to be able to control corporate behavior and ensure that it is kept separate from the democratic process. Governments need to balance between protecting the rights of their citizens while simultaneously giving enterprises as much freedom as possible so that they can be competitive. Democratic socialism was born after WWII when many European citizens saw that Communism just didn’t work and that National Socialism should not be allowed to become a real ideology (Van der Linden, 1998, p. 163). Therefore, they sought reform in public health care, public schools, housing projects, pension plans and support for low-income individuals. Socialist programs and reforms make for a better society of people that are “freer, more educated and able to live their lives to the fullest” (Van der Linden, 1998, p. 163).
The reason why social democracies have evolved towards state intervention is that citizens grew distrustful in corporations. One of the ways extreme capitalism has manifested over the years is visible in the United States, which is a modern liberal country. The growth of personal wealth over the years has led to the consolidation of businesses and eventually created a system of lobbying political parties. The greatest example of this is the healthcare industry, which is continuously making an effort to ensure that the availability of health services stays scarce so that company profits can grow. Ultimately, when people see that large players, such as pharmaceutical companies, are swaying a liberal society they start to feel less free and more part of another plan. In a capitalist society, a person is told that they are able to engage in free enterprise and compete against others. However, in practice, this is furthest from the truth as it is basically impossible to compete against large corporations, which have established a hold in the market. Democratic socialism is about ends, not means. With a free market and private ownership, it upholds individualist principles but is regulated in order to achieve a fairer, more humane society.
All modes of production – and capitalism is no exception – are subject to change. It is possible that capitalism will be replaced by a different system of human engagement so human needs are satisfied. Ultimately, it is important that a majority of the global working class have shown that capitalist ideas have served their purpose and that it was time for a change. The critical contradictions of capitalism, whereby the few own more and more capital suggest that this change will occur sooner rather than later.
Friedrich August von Hayek, was profoundly known by most of the individuals who took interest in classical liberalism in the early 20th century as an economist, but he was also considered a competent philosopher and also a political thinker due to his books that he wrote. Hayek was a renowned political economist who had an enormous impact upon how individuals in industrialist or capitalist social orders comprehend the idea of freedom and liberty. His one of most renowned works to date, which he wrote in years between 1940-43, named as “The Road to Serfdom”, in the majority part of this book Hayek discusses the argument that basically central planning and interventionism will eventually and inevitably lead to dictatorial and tyrannical authoritarianism. And why is this because dictatorship has the ability of oppression and enforcement in an effective way and that central planning could be done on a widespread.
When it comes to describing planning is that whenever there is a time of despair and national discomfort or even war, there are individuals or group of people and community who Hayek termed as being the planners. They plan on ahead of the peace policies and the terms and condition before the war is even ended. And to obtain what Hayek says as planners what they want they think of ways to create power not only power over the laws and the nation but power practiced by the men they(planners) choose fit. To such suppression of the liberty of the people, only one thing stands in there way, that is Democracy. The “Central planning board”, who Hayek also says as socialist are the ones with the highest power over the law and people even though the people think as being free from the governmental oppression. They have the power over other men in such high magnitude that the only way to minimize and repress such power from the central planning board is through Democracy, from which the power possessed by the planners can be taken away.
He more often keeps comparing the lifestyle of a man in a capitalist country compared to Germany or even Russia. He says that through working as private individuals there is to some extent an oppression or coercion but it never wholly grasps the entirety of the persons life. Liberty for Hayek is different from what we all perceive liberty to be, for him it is the freedom of economic power. But when this economic power centralized as a medium of power over the people through politics, this creates men to be slaves to the politics without them knowing that they are on the path to serfdom. An arranged economy Hayek accepted will never deliver as much output, creativity and inventiveness and joy as a free economic system. In Germany, this planning or socialism more or less was in the rise and at its prime position among the society.
When it comes to the discussion that can Socialism coexist with Democracy. Hayek accepted regardless of whether in democratic structure, to complete government policies, you have to forfeit individual freedoms. There can be no trade-offs and compromises with democracy and socialism. This is the great lie of a social utopia. Social projects imply the devastation of opportunity. This has been the incredible exercise of the twentieth century. Individuals need to see know about the expense and read history. One might just assume that the socialists have inherently and instinctively good intentions. Even though, a similar pattern comes into light and emerges when a government is implementing central planning.
Socialism and democracy if were to co-exist, this notion will definitely fail as the individual will pursue their own individual plan, which will mostly conflict with the plan made at the center by the central planning. Central planners will eventually have to implement new rules in which they have to indirectly corner the main elective representative of the people to choose the desired plan which according to them is better for the society. Hayek says central planners generally make decisions which eventually leads to failure and downfall because of their ill intentions inherently and from the start. Democratic Socialism is hence a meaningless term here. Hence, there is no place for socialism in a democratic society.
And lastly to the notion of characterizing Socialism and Nazism according to Hayek, Both the National socialism which are the Nazis and the socialist movements are built on disgust against liberalism. To have private way of earning income and economic production liberalism. Both are inspired and came into contact to the notions of Marxism. According to Hayek the connections between the socialists and the Nazi Intellectual was highlighted by him by mentioning some of the German Marxist supporters in WW1. Hayek indicates out that opposite what many figures, Nazism did not just show up out of nowhere and taint the brains of mild German individuals. There were scholastic roots that, while developed in the dirt of communist idea, developed into a rationality that applauded German predominance, extreme war, and the debasement of the person. And also when it comes into speaking of intellectuals in socialism, many helped lay down or build the intellectual foundation for the rise of the Third Reich. Many socialist transitioned from socialism to German war and eventually leading to Nazism.
At its very center, and as indicated by these German scholars, liberalism was the most outstanding adversary of arranging and association. What’s more, except if undeniable National Socialism was received, the individual would not be adequately squashed as to take into account authoritarian rule. This scorn and dread of the individual is the perspective embraced by these scholars and it proceeds with the individuals who guarantee to be socialist today. Except if the idea of independence and individualism is totally annihilated, the celebrated state can’t appear. Let this, for goodness’ sake, be an exercise on why Hayek puts such a great amount of significance on the person. It is the person, the individual, over all things, and the philosophical viewpoint that protects his or her rights, who displays the best obstruction to totalitarianism.
Starting the story with old major who convinces his fellow animals to rebel against their human master. They set up an ideal society in which all animals are equal, and all work for the benefit of each other. The pigs take a leadership position, even though technically all the animals are equal.
The extract shows that at the end of the summer season, the eventful things that happened on Mr. Jones farm about that rebellion that occurred on his farm and the people across the town and the other nearby farms heard about the news of the rebellion. Snowball and Napolean sent other pigeons and gave them instructions to tell and teach the animals in the other neighboring farms about the rebellion and the message of “Beasts Of England”. In Animal Farm, the message of ‘Beasts of England’ appeared that animals must rebel against their human masters to be free and equal.
Mr. Jones sat quietly in the taproom of the red lion at Willingdon, he wanted to talk to anyone and express his feelings about the miserable events that happened in his property. Other farmers understood the misfortune that happened to him. The two neighboring farms adjoined Animal Farm. One of the two farms was named Foxwood. It was large and it suffered from a lack of proper care and it was a very old-styled farm. The farm owner is Mr. Pilkington. The other farm name is Pinchfield, it was a small farm and better kept than Foxwood Farm. The owner was Mr. Fredrick. He was a tough man, perpetually involved in lawsuits. The two farmers disliked each other. They don’t agree on most things, the two farmers shared something in common, which is that they were worried and anxious regarding the rebellion that happened in Animal Farm and they also wanted to prevent their animals from learning too much about it.
The farmers have taken the idea of the rebellion more seriously after seeing the animals wickedness effects on the farm by hearing that they did unnatural actions like practicing cannibalism and torturing one another by a red-hot horseshoe. Recently the animals acted violently, sheeps destroyed the fence and they ate other animal’s food, bulls suddenly turned savage and uncontrollable. Moreover, the words and the tune of “Beasts of England” were known everywhere it has spread out with a fast time. Humans couldn’t contain their anger, any animal caught singing they will be flogged at the public.
Finally, I think Animal Farm is becoming a military zone more than a farming and agricultural society.
In his State of the Union Address, President Trump rebuked socialism, “Socialism destroys nations. But always remember: Freedom unifies the soul”. Why does “socialism” have such a bad connotation to it? Using the word “socialism” in a historical, Soviet-Union, Red-Scare context, President Trump, and many people, generalized socialism as an economic framework in which the government controls every aspect of the economy, in which there is no private markets, which can only be seen in a pure communist state. Big “S” socialism is worth denounced. However, socialism is a broad category for other ideologies underneath the umbrella of its name. Many people say Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is not a socialist although he calls himself one. This paper will first, define socialism, second, dive deeper into two different economic ideologies that both have “socialist” in their names though their meanings are significantly different from one another, and third, conclude Senator Sanders’s belief about socialism. Pure, big “S” socialism is an economic system that is based on collective, common, public ownership of the means of production. There are two socialist pursuits in policy of Senator Sanders that are worth mentioning. The first point is his pursuit of “true single-payer Medicare-for-all”. Medicare-for-all would be a socialist program because there would be a single entity taking over the entire health insurance industry and covering for all the needs of the people.
The second point is his proposal to increase the number of worker cooperatives. His plan is about making the stakeholders owners. Sanders denounces corporate greed and corruption because they destroy the social and economic fabric of society, where the top 1 percent of wealthy CEOs make decisions that have increasingly impacts on the future economy, environmental, and politics. Sanders would like to make a fundamental shift of the wealth of the economy to the workers by giving them ownership, or stake, in the companies for which they work. The purpose of this is to “break up corrupt corporate mergers and monopolies”. This policy is socialist since it would create businesses where the workers are in control of the means of production. Through a general look of his position, there are only a few points that are explicitly socialistic; two of which were mentioned above. In fact, Senator Sanders does not show much of an interest in promoting this change of pure socialism in the government. In his speech at George Washington (https://gradesfixer.com/free-essayexamples/why-george-washington-is-so-important/) University, Sanders defined democratic socialism:
“What democratic socialism essentially means to me is completing the vision that Franklin Delano Roosevelt started some 85 years ago, and that is to go forward in the wealthiest country in the history of the world and guarantee a decent economic standard of living in life for all of our people”.
All he means by “democratic socialism” is a continuation of the political program of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. However, FDR was not himself a socialist; he only sought social reforms in order to save capitalism. In a similar way, Sanders has not mentioned doing away with capitalism in America. Running on the platform as a reformist, he proposes various reforms to make the distribution of wealth fairer to the middle-class workers. In fact, Sanders has misused the term. Democratic socialism, strictly speaking by its standard definition, is an economic ideology that “advocates social ownership of the means of production and is therefore committed to the overthrow of capitalism as an economic model, while maintaining a commitment to political democracy”. This is intense. Senator Sanders never stated he wanted to do away with capitalism. Moreover, he wants the U.S economy to pursue that of Nordic countries, which have not done away with capitalist ways of production or a private market.
Although Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, his ideology is more known as socialist democracy. He is discontent with the top 1 percent controlling 90 percent of the U.S. economy. He is all about spreading that wealth to the middle class. He fights for universal health care, total employment, free college education, more public spending, a living wage, environmental regulations, and tax on extreme wealth. And all of these are to be achieved by democratic means. Socialist democracy “incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices”. Regardless whether Senator Sanders is a democratic socialist or socialist democrat, he is still a socialist in the end, a small “s” socialist – that is a person who believes that a country’s economy should take care of the needs of the people. Even in the United States, some goods and serves are distributed based on need rather than ability to pay: public high school education, public libraries, police services.
By definition, everyone is a socialist. It is not socialism as Karl Marx defined during the industrial revolution. Senator Sanders is not a big “S” socialist. He certainly does not want to do away with capitalism. However, he is a small “s” socialist, as many of us are. There are many arguments and strong emotions about how bad socialism is because of the historical baggage that comes with the word.
President Theodore Roosevelt coined the term muckrakers. A popular term used to describe journalists during the Progressive Era who exposed corrupt leaders and corporations. They had the intent to show the public how these companies eliminated competition, set high prices, and treated workers as “wage slaves”. Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle is a famous example of a “muckraker” book, which sought to expose the inhumane working conditions for workers as well as the unethical treatment of animals in the meatpacking industry. However, the public reacted differently than Mr.Sinclair had imagined and focused more heavily on the horrible conditions in the meatpacking industry instead of the conditions of the workers. This is embodied in Sinclair’s most famous quote “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident, I hit it in the stomach”. Meaning that Sinclair wrote the book to appeal to the public’s heart and feelings for the workers and working conditions. But, instead appealed to the public’s stomach, the idea that “they used everything but the squeal” and maybe even bits of humans too. Ultimately, the main theme of The Jungle is the idea that capitalism is evil and is the main source of corruption, poverty, and workers’ mistreatment. As well as promoting the socialist ideology and trying to persuade people to join socialism and highlight the unjust of capitalism.
Although, this was the case it did have its positive effects. President Theodore Roosevelt used this opportunity of publicity to pass the “Pure Food and Drug Act” in 1906 which instituted the FDA: the Food and Drug Administration. Whose purpose was to prevent the misbranding or selling of any poisonous food, drinks, drugs, or liquors. The Meat Inspection Act of 1907 followed the creation of the FDA, which stated that the federal government and the Department of Agriculture could inspect meat packaging factories and make sure they were up to date on sanitation and safety procedures. Before this act was passed many immigrants at the time were coming to America to live out the “American Dream” the belief that if you work hard enough you can move your way up in the social hierarchy. However, the capitalist had outsmarted the system, with such a massive surplus of workers the bosses were able to hire new fresh workers for cheaper and fire the old ones. Then, continue this process once they needed to boost production again. This process made the company’s profit grow exponentially but, led to the working class bearing an immense strain. Such as a huge gap in wealth, and extremely high mortality rates in the factories, with crime and corruption leading to poverty throughout the city.
The Jungle, although under the genres: of social criticism, political fiction, and muckraking fiction, highlights the story of a family from Lithuania moving to Chicago to live out the American Dream. Taking place in 1905-1906 in Princeton and Chicago, New Jersey. However, this idea of working hard will result in you moving up in society is completely misleading and deceiving. As the family struggles to find and keep work as they face problems of illegal and unjust labor practices. Debe dies first from sickness, followed by Ona’s son later in the story. Ona then gives birth to Antanas and returns to work a week later while Jurgis the protagonist is unable to work due to a sprained ankle and the family’s stability takes another hit. Elizabeth’s child then died of food poisoning, and Jurgis takes a job at a fertilizer plant, which is extremely dangerous because of the deadly chemicals the workers are exposed to on a daily basis. Afterward, the rising action begins when Ona gets pregnant again after being raped and blackmailed by her boss, Phil Conner, into becoming his mistress. This is the first appearance of the antagonist. Jurgis goes and fights Conner in search of justice but, ends up in jail the next day meeting and befriending Jack Duane. He leaves prison to find his family evicted from their house and Ona dead from the intensity of labor leaving her baby, Antanas in the hands of thirteen-year-old Katrina. Until Jurgis is able to find another job at a steel mill, before his luck seems to turn around he comes home to find Antanas dead face down in a puddle. Which marks the climax of the story. As it drives Jurgis to the breaking point because, Antanas symbolizes resilience, strength, and the ability to adapt and overcome. This is portrayed in his contraction of measles, scarlet fever, mumps, and whooping cough. Unfortunately, his downfall is his curiosity and lack of supervision, all his resilience to disease means nothing when you’re drowning in a pothole. Jurgis then leaves town and travels homelessly. He finds work digging freight tunnels and eventually becomes a beggar. Ironically, he gets a hundred-dollar bill one day and a warm meal from the son of the packing factory. After trying to get change for it at a saloon the bartender steals his money. Jurgis then tries to fight the bartender, this ends up with him spending ten days in jail and being charged with assault and drunkenness. Finally, Jurgis gives in to the life of crime after seeing Jack Duane in prison again. Jurgis and Jack jump a rich man and rob him dry. Later finding out that he almost died and is suffering from injuries. As time passes Jurgis’s guilt and shame fade away from each victim. After Duane gets caught and abandoned by his associates Jurgis meets Harper, she works for Mike Scully, a corrupt Democrat who wants the Republican candidate to win. Her job is to rig elections by buying votes and has Jurgis join a union in the stockyard. When the voting day comes, “He voted half a dozen times himself, and voted some of his friends as often; he brought bunch after bunch of the newest foreigners—Lithuanians, Poles, Bohemians, Slovaks—and when he had put them through the mill he turned them over to another man to take to the next polling place” (272). Resulting in the Republicans winning the election and Jurgis getting paid $300. Jurgis then wanders home drunk that night and stumbles into Ona’s old boss, Phil Conner. He then tries to beat him up again and ends up in jail, getting cheated out of all of his money because his lawyer is a friend of the powerful and influential Mr.Conner. Jurgis then becomes a strikebreaker or scab, which are the people a company brings in while the workers are on strike. Therefore, making the strike pointless and putting all the people on strike out of their jobs. After the strike ends Jurgis is jobless and homeless again. Trying to find work but isn’t physically fit enough. Winter comes and he begins to hunt for shelter, otherwise, he’ll freeze to death. He then finds the location of Marija and the second he enters the building the police raid the building which turned out to be a brothel. Marija has become addicted to morphine and a prostitute in order to support her children, Stanislova fell asleep in a storage room and died from being attacked by rats. Jurgis then attends a socialist speech and is captivated by the idea of socialism. He meets Ostrinksy who teaches him about the need for a “class consciousness” and the evils of “wage slavery”. As a result, ending the novel on an optimistic note that socialism will save the working class and help bring about social justice and equality.
Mr.Sinclair spent 7 weeks incognito in the meat packaging plant himself as well as questioning the workers, doctors, lawyers, etc. All to expose the meat packaging industry, especially in Chicago. The US’s largest meat packaging town, where the workers had gone on strike in 1904 in a rebellion against horrible conditions and wages. However, the company just brought in more strikebreakers. Mr.Sinclair was sent to investigate and write a novel on the conditions and events that had just occurred from the editor at the Socialist magazine Appeal to Reason. To whom he had been working for under a year. The public’s reaction was more than anything he could’ve imagined. The people bombarded the white house with complaints about the meatpacking industry and demanded reforms. But, Sinclair’s popularity rose to an all-time high at the time, he didn’t like to be considered a muckraker. He liked to view himself as a novelist but was seen by the public as one of the most iconic muckrakers of all time.
But before Mr.Sinclair was a famous muckraker he had humble beginnings, growing up in Baltimore post-Civil War. He was born in 1878 and died in 1968. He graduated from Columbia in 1897 and spent some time working for the Socialist magazine Appeal to Reason to finish and publish his most famous work The Jungle. However, his career did not end there. He then formed a new group called “The Intercollegiate Socialist Society” which was composed of highly intellectual socialist thinkers. Then, in 1913-1914 he went to the coal fields in Colorado to do the same thing again and report on the horrible working conditions of the coalfields in his book “Coal King”. He then tried to follow up with the sequel called “The Coal War” but was rejected from publishing due to a lack of publishing interest. After his writing career died down he then tried to pick up a career in politics. He formed the American Civil Liberties Union in California 1920s. Then unsuccessfully ran for Congress and the House of Representatives as a socialist candidate. After spending some time in LA supporting radical ideals, he then tried his luck running for the democratic party as a socialist. Surprisingly he was elected by the democratic party to represent them in the California Gubernatorial Election which he lost due to the fact that many Hollywood directors disliked him. They then released propaganda and encouraged their actors to vote against him. He was then known as one of history’s first democratic socialists.
Throughout all of Sinclair’s accomplishments, The Jungle is one of the most memorable and important things he has done. The title itself symbolizes the state of Packing Town. The chaotic nature, the struggle to survive, and an attack on the idea that only the “fittest” can survive and thrive, aka the rich capitalist. Although this is true it shows how the rich capitalist are only the strongest and richest because they make their wealth by working the working class to death. As well as illuminating how the richest capitalist is the most corrupt and evil rather than the strongest and most fit. Ultimately leading to a cycle of usage where the factory owners are cycling through all the workers until the workers are all old, used up, and burnt out. Then, they bring in new workers in the form of immigrants. “There is one kind of prison where the man is behind bars, and everything that he desires is outside, and there is another kind where the things are behind the bars, and the man is outside (291). This illustrates the idea that poor workers are trapped behind the bars of capitalism and that wealth and prosperity are on the opposite side of the bars. Symbolizing that capitalism is caging the workers in from achieving wealth and prosperity.
Another major usage of symbolism similar to the theme of confinement of capitalism is the premise of the stockyard. The usage of symbolism occurs in the idea of herding and slaughtering animals in a messy inhumane way. Having the animals being bred for the sole purpose of being slaughtered. Reflecting the same way the factory owners would use the workers up and end up slaughtering them in a slower prolonged way, as well as caging them into a system where their children are born into the same poor conditions being forced to work the same jobs as their parents continuing the inescapable cycle of the slaughterhouse. This cycle
It was pork-making by machinery, pork-making by applied mathematics. And yet somehow the most matter-of-fact person could not help thinking of the hogs; they were so innocent, they came so very trustingly; and they were so very human in their protests–and so perfectly within their rights! They had done nothing to deserve it; and it was adding insult to injury, as the thing was done here, swinging them up in this cold-blooded, impersonal way, without a pretense at an apology, without the homage of a tear. Now and then a visitor wept, to be sure; but this slaughtering machine ran on, visitors or no visitors. It was like some horrible crime committed in a dungeon, all unseen and unheeded, buried out of sight and of memory. (39-40)
Satire is used to illuminate the cruelty of the treatment of animals as well as symbolize the same cruel treatment of the workers. Personifying the pigs with human attributes of protest and innocence as well as giving them rights. This is important because it helps visualize the similarities between the pigs and the workers. Ultimately, bringing to light the injustice of it all, saying that whatever lawless or inhumane actions occurred in the factory, whether seen or unseen, has gone unpunished and forgotten. This important theme of corruption and injustice is also embodied within Durham’s Pure Leaf Lard.
These people could not be shown to the visitor,—for the odor of a fertilizer man would scare any ordinary visitor at a hundred yards, and as for the other men, who worked in tank rooms full of steam, and in some of which there were open vats near the level of the floor, their peculiar trouble was that they fell into the vats; and when they were fished out, there was never enough of them left to be worth exhibiting,—sometimes they would be overlooked for days, till all but the bones of them had gone out to the world as Durham’s Pure Leaf Lard! (105)
Durham’s cans of lard contain rotten meat and even human bodies with the exception of their bones. To compare how although the cans are decorated nicely and look enticing ultimately, they fabricate a counterfeit image of a well-produced product. The cans represent the idea that capitalism and the American dream are enticing and decorated nicely on the outside. However, on the inside, it’s rotten, packed with lies, deception, and a high chance of death or disease. To emphasize how the workers are being cheated and lied to while being given false hopes of the American dream.
The Atlantic Revolutions were the revolutionary waves that swept Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, playing a crucial role in reshaping the political history of the modern geopolitical climate. It was associated with the Atlantic world during the period between 1770s and 1870s taking place in Europe and Americas between 1775-1783, Spanish America in 1810-1825, Europe and France in 1789-1814. This paper will succinctly discuss the extent to which socialist ideas and thinking in the period between 1800 and 1914 reflected the issues that were central to the Atlantic Revolutions that have been explored by Strayer and Nelson (2016). Moreover, this paper will also discuss the ways in which socialist thinking departed from the earlier revolutionary upheavals in the Atlantic Revolutions.
The Atlantic Revolutions, which refers to the Haitian, French, Haitian, and American Revolutions were almost entirely based on the conceptions of liberalism which was individual oriented and largely focused on the freedoms of people in the state against an oppressive government (Strayer & Nelson, 2009). This was evident by the revolts that were witnessed against the monarchist systems of governments in France, Spain, and Britain. Thus, the ideas of socialism like freedom inspired the people to break free from the oppression of the state government that would therefore minimally intervene in their lives and uphold the freedoms, human rights, and civil liberties by non-interventions in the lives of their citizens. Simply put, the Atlantic Revolutions originated and were influenced by democratic revolutionary ideals of socialist thinkers who wanted to extend political rights further in the period between 1800 and 1914.
The socialist ideals of Enlightenment by revolutionary thinkers in the period between 1800 and 1914 influenced the Atlantic Revolutions. The Enlightenment idea of natural laws of socialism have been implicated mainly in the French and American Revolutions (Withers, 2017). There was an agitation by the people to establish Enlightenment ideals within their nations. These socialist ideals included rejecting imperialism, political and social equality of all women and men, titles and nobility, upholding human rights, and economic equality as seen in the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (Tatarchenko, 2019). Moreover, socialist ideals and thinking that reflected the Atlantic Revolutions were the belief that the Enlightenment was telling people to fight for equality, natural rights, and civil liberties where people had the right to fight for their freedom as well as challenge the authority of the governing coalition. The emphasis on universal ideals of Enlightenment that included equal justice under the law by the oppressive government and disinterested courts indicated the revolutions and sprung socialism into action with people believing that they could actually be a change in political rights, economic fortunes, and new government. Indeed, revolutionary mentalities brought by socialist thinking were hatched and still continue to flourish to the modern-day existing world, the government in virtually all nations, and the people. The demand for self-determination to adjust pre-existing authoritarian standards that underlie economic and political liberty. Thus, anarchy is sometimes avoided in the political and economic spheres where socialist ideals stress on fraternity, the law, and equal rights. All these are usually bound together in the socialist idea of constitutionalism where natural theory, economic theory, and natural law prevents liberty from disintegrating into confusion.
The Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu and John Locke, that heavily influenced socialist thinkers in the revolutionary era. The agitation for rights based on the principles of equality, fraternity, and liberty were based on socialist thinking of giving citizens broader freedoms of speech, participation, right to vote freely, and better economic fortunes to produce governments with separation of powers, written constitutions, courts systems, and expanded suffrage among the people (Blume, 2019). At the center of the socialist thinking in the Atlantic Revolutions were general unrests in Europe that existed in the 1780s like economic strains from technological and demographic changes, political ideas that popularized the debates on Enlightenment, frustrating reverses especially in foreign policy, the stiffening of conservative resistance, policies that limited freedom, demands for economic and social change that were advanced by democratic and liberal critics, and the influence of the American revolutions. The socialist thinking can also be drawn from ideas of John Locke who said that all men are born equal with rights of liberty, property, and life. The socialist thinking believed that the human nature was good and that the human nature was good and that without government, people would be cooperative and reasonable that could learn from experiences as well as improving themselves. For instance, France’s government and its society on the eve of the French Revolution went against what most revolutionary thinkers had in mind. In the long-term, the Atlantic Revolutions mostly succeed since they spread the ideals of republicanism and neoliberalism that stemmed from the socialist thinking, established churches, and overthrown governments. Indeed, the Atlantic Revolutions by the time were influenced by socialism had built a framework that allowed the redress of wrongs and future inclusion.
Socialist revolutionaries saw the state as a probability of being mechanisms for freedom to be ushered to the oppressed. While aristocracies and monarchies may still be oppressive, socialists believed that the state could be able to for the wellbeing of their citizens and deliver economic freedom to eliminate oppression and poverty rather than a freedom to do just what one wants to do. They saw the freedom from philosophy as greater than the freedom to philosophy of the Atlantic Revolutions since they believed that one cannot be free without daily needs like food, shelter. Therefore, the state providing these needs to everyone would make people truly free than many liberal countries. On the other hand, socialist thinking, in some ways, depart from the earlier revolutionary upheavals. The radical alteration in basic values and beliefs provided a perfect ground for revolutionary upheaval. Socialist thinking ideals proved too much for some revolutionaries with some arguing that it provided unnecessary economic burden on the people in the face of economic struggles since there was a belief that the government should provide everything to people including basic needs. Moreover, expensive nature of providing needs, big government, and the inherent dictatorship in many states made socialist thinking depart from the revolutionary upheavals (Dal Lago, 2016). While the right to poverty has and was a liberal concept of a state based on social, economic, and political freedom where the revolution led to educated middle class in America and Europe, it was not an easy thing to achieve based on the alignments of the world that was largely based on capitalism. The world faced numerous economic and political challenges that made it hard to realize the dreams of socialism in providing basic needs for all people by the government also making it difficult to get rid of class-based birth rights and partialities.
References
Blume, K. J. (2019). Poseidon’s Curse: British Naval Impressment and Atlantic Origins of the American Revolution.
Dal Lago, E. (2016). Imagining the British Atlantic after the American Revolution. Ed. by Michael Meranze and Saree Makdisi. Canadian Journal of History, 51(3), 686-688.
Strayer, R. W., & Nelson, E. (2009). Ways of the World: A Brief Global History. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Strayer, R. W., & Nelson, E. W. (2016). Ways of the World: A Brief Global History with Sources (Volume 2, Since the Fifteenth. Bedford/St. Martins).
Tatarchenko, K. (2019). Thinking Algorithmically: From Cold War Computer Science to the Socialist Information Culture. HIST STUD NAT SCI, 49(2), 194-225.
Withers, C. W. (2017). Where Was the Atlantic Enlightenment?—Questions of Geography. In The Atlantic Enlightenment (pp. 51-74). Routledge.
Some aspects of social life have a strong connection to group size. Particularly, more significant classification tends to be associated with higher levels of structural differentiation and low personal interaction. The lack of intense relationships can be observed in urban areas where people are independent, private, and differentiated. Some examples of small groups include religious sects, aristocracies, and socialism, while large is the mass. Although some aspects of social life can be done with many people, others can only be maintained if there is homogeneity, the possibility of surveillance, and solidarity.
Discussion
Socialism is an example of a group that works best when members are alike such that they can individually see the contributions of others despite the division of labor. Notably, in a large group, when every person has their specialization, they carry over their private life. The other example is a religious sect in which solidarity in the assembly contrasts with what the larger groups believe. The Mammon Church, for instance, have specific beliefs that distinguish them from other mainstream Christians and make them attached. In some groups like aristocracies (such as the British royal family), members must be observed and restricted from the mass. The affiliates must be able to identify the entire household so that there are no instances of impersonation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Simmel rightly states that the size of a group can have significant implications for the members. Some dynamics gives restriction that makes it hard for large numbers of people. A few of the confining aspects include associations, acquaintances, and solidarity, among others. The royalties must know each other, cults thrive in solidarity of belief systems, and socialism is maintained when each individual can see the contributions that the other brings. The implication is that strong ties are broken when people increase, leading to ineffectiveness.
Ellner’s positive Chávez Wins Again and the somewhat negative A New Path for Latin America? by Michael Shifter are two papers that deal with Venezuela’s so called “Twenty-First Century Socialism” and its chief advocate President Hugo Chavez. Ellner speaks mostly about how the Venezuelans still support Chavez while Shifter speaks of how the Venezuelans are slowly become weary of Chavez and his socialist/militarist regime. Both are essentially true and can be reconciled because they speak from two different perspectives.
Ellner believes that Chavez is still supported by his people, at least the majority of them, in support of this claim Steve points to the fact that Chavez’ party won a majority of the gubernatorial seats as well as the mayoral and state legislature posts in the 2008 Venezuelan elections. To stay any allegations that this was a rump election he also points to the fact that there was a 65% voter turn out, very high especially for an allegedly authoritarian regime. A president no longer beloved of his people can not possibly enjoy this much support.
In contrast, Shifter’s article claims that Venezuela is tired of Chavez. To prove this he points to the failure of Chavez’ referendum to put into place his new constitution. A President who remains beloved of his people should have found it easy to convince his people to ratify the constitution. According to Shifter the sheer draconian nature and authoritarian flavor of the constitution were the reasons for the people not supporting it.
Both articles point to the fact that Chavez still has a strangle hold of power in Venezuela, Chavez controls the vast fortunes that the country makes from its oil and suggests that he has virtually unlimited discretion to spend this money. Hence the social programs that he employs to prop up his regime are the direct result of oil largess, oil profits, instead of sound economic planning. The articles capture an interesting perspective. Shifter considers the failure of the Chavez referendum as the beginning of the end for his regime which would make sense if it were not countered by Ellner’s observation that country still voted overwhelmingly for Chavez’ party. Both views are correct, Chavez is popular because of his populist policies backed with oil money. The peace and order achieved under his presidency and the his political grandstanding on the world stage have also increased his popularity with his people and his Latin American neighbors. However his people are not willing to hand him absolute power. His brand of socialism while popular is not the prelude to absolute power he desires. The people still want to have elections and to have certain freedoms, freedoms which the new constitution will effectively deny.
Venezuela is not likely to become a model for development in Latin America. In the first place natural resources are against them. Chavez’ strangle hold on power is made possible by the huge profits the country’s oil industry made when the price of Oil skyrocketed in recent years. No other nearby country has as much oil as Venezuela and hence their leaders do no have the deep hoards of money that Chevez has at his disposal. Furthermore, Chavez is the opposite of the trend. Ordinarily leaders in Latin America come to power after deposing military backed oppressive regimes. Chavez himself is from the military. Ordinarily military coups are hard to sustain. Other than Chavez only Burma’s junta has been successful in clinging to power for very long. Democratic principles are too deep seated even in third world nations to be suppressed for very long before the people yearn for freedom. In any case, Chavez’ development of his country is a direct result of his nation’s natural wealth and not his socio-economic policies. In other words its mostly just luck.
Works Cited
Shifter, Michael. “A New Path for Latin America?” Annual Editions: World Politics 09/10.Helen Purkitt,ed.New York: McGraw-hill,2010:103-104.
Ellner,Stever.”Chavez Wins Again.” In These Times. 2008.
Socialism in USA can be traced to the days of the arrival of German immigrants and during the formation of Marxian Socialist Union. Socialism was considered as the belief and hope that men could be rescued from their helplessness and depression by use of government power. The Socialist Party in the USA was founded by Eugene Debs, and it thrived under his charismatic leadership. The party sought to tackle the American problems in an American manner (Socialism 1).
During his radical speeches, Debs acknowledged that there was only one general labor problem and there was no Negro problem. He expressed optimism that racial prejudice would evaporate. Consequently, in one of his articles, Debs mentioned that the socialist party had nothing special or specific to offer the Negroes, and that it was impossible to appease all the races.
According to Debs, the Socialist Party was to be the party of the working class irrespective of the race and color. The failure of the Socialist Party to deal with the Negro problem was due to its perspective of the racial prejudice problem and Debs acceptance of the racial supremacy notion in his political thoughts. Debs acknowledged that there was no Negro problem but general labor problem.
Philip Randolph was an American activist who served as the leader of both the Negro Civil Rights Movement and the Labor Movement in the USA. Randolph led a match to the Washington, which was aimed at pressurizing President Franklyn Roosevelt to desegregate all production plants dealing with military supplies during the World War II.
Consequently, Randolph inspired the freedom budget that sought to ameliorate the economic problems of the Negro in general and workers and the unemployed, in particular. Randolph was a vocal agitator and an advocate for the civil rights of the Afro-American community. His match to Washington was aimed at ending discrimination in factories.
It is through the efforts of Randolph that the President promulgated the Fair Employment Act as a measure to address the grievances of Randolph. Consequently, Randolph led a demonstration at the Madison Square to advocate for equal opportunities in all spheres of employment from the government, labor union and military to war industries.
This allowed the government to incorporate the Negroes into employment that was earlier preserved for the white employees. The renewed efforts of Randolph aimed at ending racial discrimination in the military led to the formation of a committee which was later dubbed Civil Disobedience.
This forced the president of the USA Harry Truman to end racial segregation in the military by applying an executive order. Consequently, Randolph emerged as an advocate for ending immigration restrictions (Socialism 1).
During the new deal, the communists contributed more on matters job creation than the socialists and democrats. This is because the communists advocated for welfare capitalism which emasculated radicalism so such an extent that they could not be called socialists. Democrats estranged radicalism but they never win any support elsewhere (Laslett 40).
Philip Randolph was a black man and a founder of the magazine the messenger which was provocative and radical. He was described as the most dangerous Negro by President Woodrow Wilson. Besides organizing worker strikes, he joint hands with the progressives and the communists to form the National Negro Congress.
He considered socialism as the only way of uniting the blacks and he worked for the emancipation of the whites through Labor unions. He was instrumental in creating the consciousness which led to the establishment of the Civil Rights Movement (Randolph 7).
In the advent of the Southern Civil Rights Movement, there were various realignments and changes in party position. The Democratic Party embraced radical liberalism. The passage of civil rights acts during the period of 1960s enabled parties to switch positions on civil rights matters.
Democratic Party supported civil rights positions and this position was in consonant with that of the grassroots activists. This was after the New Deal coalition of southern democrats and the northern liberals which was considered to be a successful alignment.
Big Bill Haywood was an American radical who established and led the Industrial Workers of the World. Haywood was also an executive committee member of the Socialist Party of America. It was in his capacities in the above organizations that he organized various strikes and labor battles.
Haywood was considered as an advocate of Industrial Unionism, which advocated for the organization of all industry workers into one umbrella union. It was because of his radicalism that he was arrested and prosecuted on several occasions.
Haywood was dismissed from the Socialist Party in 1912 due to his advocacy for direct action in contrast to a political tactic that was considered the position of the party. Haywood represented the interests of the working class in the labor struggles. He occupied the second top most position in the Women Federation of Miners.
The Wobblies or the Industrial Workers of the World was an international union that represented the interest of the workers and was formed by socialists. Wobblies promoted industrial unionism as opposed to craft unionism advocated by other unions.
The Wobblies broke out of the Socialist Party due to its policy stand since it argued for political action contrary to arbitration and political affiliation, which were the stand of the Socialist Party. The Wobblies advocated and appealed to the working-class and the Negroes. The government ultimately capitalized on the instabilities of the World War I to crush down on the activities of the Wobblies (Socialism 1).
Lack of socialism in USA implies advanced capitalist practices. U.S. lacks social-democratic presences with a working class that lack class consciousness. According to Lipset, there is no socialism in USA due to the nature of its society.
He argued that America is a new society which lacks class stratification as well as a feudal system. The ideological emphasis which stresses on equality, liberty and egalitarianism make it difficult to persuade the Americans to embrace socialism.
U.S. already believes in the principal of equal opportunity for all. Consequently, internal factors in US radicalism make it hard for socialism to thrive. These factors include diversity in cultures and languages and racial divide and strong economic growth.
The nature of America’s society prohibits the emergence of class based political ideologies, which subscribe to the European model. Class feeling that is typical of European societies is absent in America. The mass American politics and the American culture of consumption developed long before it happened in Europe.
The prevalence of socialism in Europe is due to the fact that Europe was catching up with the stage that America was several years ago, and it was experiencing an economic and political process which had been already experienced in the USA. The presence of democratic parties in the United States of America has been considered as the best instruments for social-democratic movements (Foner 57).
The riddle of socialism in the USA had puzzled Marx and Engels. To them, capitalism was ripe in the USA, and also it was ripe for social revolutions, but they argued that it was the absence of an entrenched feudal system and tradition that hindered the development of socialism.
It is the varied definition of socialism that made it difficult to comprehend whether there was or no socialism in the USA. The absence of revolutionary or labor movement in the USA is one of the factors that explained the absence of socialism.
The USA does not have a large social-democratic party like the ones that exist in the European countries like the Labor Party in Britain or the Federalist Party in France or the Communist Party of Italy, which have the capacity to capitalize on mass socialism consciousness.
Consequently, it is explained that its nature of advanced capitalism and as a country that lacks strong social-democratic presence with social class that lacks class consciousness also explain the absence of socialism in the USA. It is worth mentioning that the three factors which are recipes for socialism are ideology, politics and class structure.
Consequently, people must be united by a common course in order to keep socialism alive since in ancient Europe it was the militancy in factories that was often reflected in the class politics of socialism. The American form of socialism was the only workplace oriented as opposed to creating their presence in the workplace and the rejuvenation of Labor and Socialist parties in the period of 1820 were short-lived because they ran out of ideologies, and they failed to create a presence between industrial relations and American political practice (Foner 58).
Socialism failed in the USA due to the class conflation and the features of the American society and politics which come with unfortunate consequences. The absence of a powerful social-democratic party can be used to explain why socialism could not thrive in US. The American society is also static.
This implies that their political ideology, limited mobility and limited understanding, and the tradition of American radicalism could not allow socialism to flourish. According to Hart, socialism is an inherited practice which is traced to the feudal past and from society with class stratification. He argued that minus feudal tradition and class oppression in society, socialism becomes dormant. Since socialism advocated for a classless society, America had already reached that kind of society.
Emigrants from Germany and France created the fear that the country was being occupied by a majority Catholic population, and they injected a new dimension into the slavery debate which they constantly opposed. Majority of them joined the Republican Party in 1860 elections due to the fact that the party advocated for an end to slavery and equality for all.
The Germany immigrants were running away after an unsuccessful revolution in 1848. They were pleased with the abolitionist policy of the Republican Party and the party’s policy of free soil. Germany’s support for Union during the American civil war also attracted the German immigrants to the Republican Party (Foner 69).
Red republicanism in the USA was rebranded to democratic republicanism, which was understood to combine democracy, which was the voice of the people and republicanism which was the spirit that unified the Americans as a state. The U.S. socialist party was similar to the ones formed in Europe since it was aimed at helping the peasant and the lower-class population.
Socialist parties emerged as instruments for advocacy and with the main task of destabilizing the status quo that only benefited the minority at the expense of the majority. Socialist parties were instrumental in shaping the modern-day politics. Socialism was instrumental in ameliorating the existent labor conditions all over the world.
Lincoln was a red Republican. He became the first present to be elected on the Republican ticket. Red Republican was the party which was formed to abolish all forms of slavery. Republican is considered a radical democratic party due to its positions on several issues.
This was imminent immediately after it assumed government; the party oversaw various radical changes, which were aimed at saving the union which included the abolition of slavery, and it advocated for equal rights of all men following the American civil war.
The radical picture of the red Republican was manifested in its support for capitalism and commerce where it pressed for an increase in wages and pension for veterans of the union. Red Republicans also supported the annexation of Hawaii. The party’s position against the US joining the League of Nations was by itself radical (Foner 75).
Works Cited
Foner, Eric. “Why is there no Socialism in the United States?” History Workshop Journal 1.1 (n.d.): 57-80.
Randolph, Philip. Black Macho and black Feminism. Radical America 14.2 (1980):1-70. Print.
Laslett, John. Failure of a dream?: essays in the history of American socialism. 1984. University of California Press. Print.
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 Khomeini’s 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 Khomeini’s 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 Khomeini’s 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 Khomeini’s 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 Khomeini’s 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 Khomeini’s 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 government’s 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 Khomeini’s 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 d’honeur, 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 Khomeini’s 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 Khomeini’s 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 History’s 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