A communist’s response to Martin’s ontological question of how we exist, based on the reading, would be that of a naturalistic ontology. According to Whittaker Chambers (1987), “It is the vision of man once more the central figure of the Creation, not because God made man in his image but because man’s mind makes him the most intelligent of the animals.” Based on the reading a communist would respond to how we exist as non-supernatural or an unknown source of naturalistic power or force. A communist’s response to the epistemological question of how we know is based on the reason that they “displaced man as the central fact of the universe by proving that the earth was not the central star of the universe” (Chambers, 1987). The axiological response to the question of ultimate value is materialistic axiology, which believes that matter is the ultimate value. In the excerpt Chambers (1987) states “It challenges man to prove by his acts that he is the master work of Creation – by making thought and act one.” The final question, teleological, asks where are we going.
He believes that this will ease the process of transformation, and end the constant oppression that is present. Lenin quotes Marx that following the revolution; there is “political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” Lenin agrees with Marx and believes that the state in its current form is highly oppressive that that no matter what has been said or has been put on paper, men are inevitably unequal and that “democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation.” Lenin is angered by the fact the higher class (the bourgeoisie) have the utmost control and the working class (the proletariat) must follow their reign. This is when Lenin’s main argument is revealed: The proletariat must suppress the bourgeoisie immediately in order to “free humanity from wage slavery.” Lenin wants the “complete withering away of the state.” He believes that this will happen with the proletariat through the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The majority of the society will
Mao adapted Communist ideas to China and he followed in Joseph Stalin’s footsteps by abusing his power and crippling the Chinese in fear with his totalitarian rule. In this essay I will be exploring the factors contributing to one of the biggest disputes in historical knowledge. Was Mao Zedong’s role in achieving communism genuine or has it been exaggerated and morphed by the Asian populations living under absolute despotism. “Idealism is no panacea in a totalitarian regime.” 1 - Quoted by a 20th century philosopher. It wasn’t said about Mao however it adapts to his ideas and aspirations.
Gandhi was a man that would “strain every nerve to make Truth and Non-violence accepted in all our national activities” (i.e. Gandhi, 358). He believed that if India could get out of control and show the world that progress could be made, he would show other nations that they too, could gain their own power as a self governed nation. Gandhi and Marx would agree on terms of having self governing nations because Marx’s main goal was Communism. While Marx thought that strength in numbers mattered and how many Proletariats could take down the Bourgeois class, Gandhi believed that “strength does not come from physical capacity” (i.e.
Assess the view that Lenin's rule between 1917 and 1924 was merely a brutal dictatorship 'Lenin the affable genius or Lenin the irascible tyrant" The two contrasting views which many historians still debate, whether Lenin was simply a mindless dictator or the soviet view which historian Read hints at by the words of "affable genius", in that Lenin's authoritarian rule was simply a way of maintaining control of the proletariat in order to further the socialist cause, and would then change back to communism when able to. Other historians take a different view and agree with Lenin himself when he said that the dictatorship was part of 'adaptations to the prevailing circumstances’, a reference to the substantial social, economic and political problems Russia faced such as extreme famine and the outbreak of civil war in 1918, but due to his strong marxist beliefs, it seemed that a brutal rule was the only option in taming the unrest throughout the country, particularly if he wanted to avoid a repetition of events such as the February revolution. Especially when putting into context, that up until 1917 Russia had endured a repressive tsar regime, which used brutality and force to maintain control, so the population were used to conforming by the threat of violence and judging by Lenins' statement of 'The soviet revolutionary republic will triumph no matter what the cost" it seems that Lenin felt it necessary to continue this ideology in order for Russia to function correctly. The level of brutality that Lenin used though is somewhat questionable, but in incidents such as Kronstadt, where the infamously barbaric Cheka were used to regain control, supports the view that rather that Lenin limiting the brutality of his regime " In fact he wanted the brutality to be as intense as possible in the short term so that it might not need to be unduly extended in time" so even
He believed in ‘Socialism in one country’ where the USSR would become strong enough to survive, then would take over the rest of the world. There is no doubt that his plans were successful in many ways, but would it be logical to call this phase an overall success when we consider the human cost, chaos, un-organization and the slip in overall living conditions in everyday life? Or are those flaws completely irrelevant as Stalin was a tyrannical leader who did what was necessary for the country to move the country forward and the deaths would probably be viewed as a necessary statistic. Stalin’s first plan (October 1928 – December 1932) was extremely far fetched, the plan lacked reality and rather random enormous statistics were demanded for the factories to produce. This was largely down to the two groups involved in the construction of the plan; the Gosplan (in charge of the wider plan – not the specifics) and the Vensenka (who were in charge of the specifics e.g.
The first of which explains that men have a natural right to acquire and possess property; this argument is the most important to the overarching theme of his work. Locke’s overall political theory tells that men have inherent, natural rights in the state of nature, rights which are independent of larger society: they are life, liberty and property (¶124). Locke argues that despite the fact that God gave earth to mankind in common, men own their own bodies, including what we put into our bodies such as food and that which we make from our bodies, so “excludes the common right of other men” (¶27). The example of food actually becomes a cornerstone in Locke’s logic of natural property rights. Locke insists everyone is bound to preserve himself by reason, (¶6) such preservation requires the intake of food; therefore man is inclined to possess private property to preserve himself.
Like capitalism, he believes region is a man-made creation, which eventually became regarded as a natural phenomenon. And similar to labor, as man prescribes more and more powers to God, the less he keeps for himself causing God to become much more powerful, yet entirely man made. The alienation of human labor is the result of a capitalistic economy, and takes four forms: alienation from the act of labor, alienation from the product of labor, alienation from man’s species being, and alienation from fellow laborers. In a world without private property man would own his labor, he would identify with his labor, find satisfaction in his labor and in turn his labor would become an objectification of his individuality. However, in a capitalistic society, man is forced to sell his labor to those who own the means of production.
Against a supposedly Christian society that barely met the natural law knowable? When a Christian man has a great learning and profound intellectual charity the least he can do is to seek for the justice that is not among his people. That is the case of Thomas More, a humanist who gave the world in his Utopia a vision of a perfect communistic commonwealth. With Utopia More tried to transform his corrupt world in which he lived, to a dreamy and imaginary world, where everyone was equal, and where private property did not exist. For this, he uses not an ideal state, neither a Christian state, but a rational state that follows the natural law, a state which tries to make manifest that paganism is no better than Christianity, but that some Christians are worse than pagans.
When there is no divine power present, the masses can’t help but forge the supreme beings examples of such may be the works, states, even dictatorships. In a case of such the direction is pointed at the religion of the “mass man” the present nations who sustain this sort of belief Syria, Cuba, and North Korea, nations who disperse of g-d and take on man as the supreme leader of the country (dictatorship) or make the leader g-d himself, demi-god to be more rational. Fanaticism, another aspect which tears man away from himself and makes mass-minded patriotic individual, a plain simple social unit with a filled excessiveness of belief, a single minded zeal. Religion is not a bad thing, regardless the different traditions and natures of all creeds and social groups. The directions religions points at aren’t all entirely spiritual, simply shown in equality matters of prosperity and freedoms for masses and states, the supportive state policies.