How and why have socialists endorsed collectivism? Socialism defines collectivism on the grounds that human beings have all the capacity of human being for collective action. In this way, socialists reject the liberal idea of a self-sufficient and self-contained human creature as well as 'atomised society'. A collective, unified collection of social creatures is capable of overcoming social and economic problems by drawing on the power of the community rather than individual effort. Socialists, therefore, endorsed collectivism to strenghten the idea of fraternity - society is desired to work together while being bounded by sympathy and comradership, that are believed to symbolise the the bonds of common humanity.
The 'great spurt' of the 1890s saw a formation of a new social class; the proletariats. With their help, Marxism suggested that this new group would help put an end to the tsarist regime before in which a perfect, harmonious society would emerge. In theory, the first Marxist revolutionary was George Plekhanov. In 1883, Plekhanov formed the Liberation of Labour group after splitting with the Land of Liberty. Plekhanov did not believe in terrorist ideas but rather supported a more social idea, working with industrial workers and peasants.
Old Labour, the traditional socialist representation of the labour party, presented many socialist views, such as cradle-to-grave welfare and social justice. They also opposed such views as a free-market economy, much preferring to regulate and set quotas for it. Old Labour was the standing of the Labour Party since their founding in the early 20th century. Since then, the party has undertaken a radical change, through the conception of Neil Kinnock and the branding of Tony Blair, to become the centre-left party that we’ve come to know as New Labour. New Labour govern with a pragmatic stance, concentrating on making practical decisions that influence the UK, as oppose to Old Labour who were ideological, and looked at the best ways in which to manage society and react to current events.
Like Durkheim (a Functionalist), Marx believed it was possible to understand society scientifically and scientific knowledge would lead to a better society. However (unlike Durkheim), he believed capitalism would increase human misery before giving way to a classless, communist society, in which humans would be free to fulfil their potential. He believed that history would go through a series of base changes – primitive communism, ancient society, feudalism, capitalism and then communism. The organisation of production in a society shapes the nature of society – refers to this as the base/superstructure. According to Marx – in a capitalist society, the economic relationship of exploitation requires ideologies in the superstructure to cover up inequality – they are not innocent/neutral because they justify inequality and serve the interest of powerful groups.
The basic way to describe socialism is a lighter form of communism. I don't agree with the authors ideas on government because it is know about eighty years after the story was written and we have gotten along just fine while other countries have relied on communism and collapsed. Sinclair’s purpose in writing The Jungle was to persuade people to join the socialist party and to adopt the view that socialism is the only way to conquer the capitalistic empires that abuse the working class. The socialist ethic is that the general public will have joint ownership of the factory. Sinclair uses many clever devices in order to get his readers to agree with this ethic.
He was convinced that using scientific principles, sociologists could solve problems such as poverty, crime and war. Emile Durkheim paid a lot of emphasizes on social facts and social integration. Karl Marx devoted his life to analyzing and criticizing the society he observed. He was also interested in how capitalism shaped society. Max Weber, showed that the basic structure of society comes from the political, economic, cultural spheres.
As described in the text, J.P. Morgan desired power and control as opposed to gaining wealth. In the reorganizations of the railroads and the consolidation of competing businesses, Morgan had created industrial giants know as General Electric and U.S. Steel. Rockefeller Jr. believed that by eliminating small businesses was the “working out of a law of nature and a law of God”. This ideology of society was based on the law of evolution at a macro-level, in comparing the business world to the natural world. But in reality the natural laws governing businesses had nothing to do with evolution but rather the laws of supply and demand.
However, other reasons also played a part. Concern over national security also played a part in persuading the Government that reforms were needed. It could be argued that British politics almost revolved around national efficiency and responding to the industrial and economical threat of Germany and America consequently leading to the reforms. The new Labour party promised social reforms and the Liberals were worried about losing votes. The Liberals knew they had to find a way of keeping the working class votes.
Assess the usefulness of Postmodernism to our understanding of society today Postmodernism is a major intellectual movement that we are living in a new era of post modernity. There is an ongoing debate in sociology as to whether society has moved from modernity to post modernity. Modern society first emerged in Western Europe. Capitalism was established what is based on private ownership and of the means of production and the use of wage labourers. Capitalism brought about the industrialisation of modern society, this idea is favoured by Marxists but postmodernists argue that society is not as simple as this.
Positivists are of the opinion that society can be studied using a scientific approach comparable to the way scientists study the natural world. The early sociologists such as Comte were of this opinion and Durkheim’s famous study ‘Le Suicide’ demonstrated many aspect of this positivist approach. On the other hand an interpretist will take a more humanist approach and are of the opinion that is in fact the individuals free will that shapes societythis social action is in stark contrast to the social systems approach. This is a viewpoint whereby the individual