It wasn’t until shortly after his death that Karl Marx’s ideology began to significantly influence socialist movements. Although relatively unknown during his lifetime he has become one of the fundamental economic and sociological figures of the modern era. Many of his theories and insights into the way society functions are still relevant in the expanding capitalist society that exists today. Marx was very critical of capitalism and the division in society between the bourgeoisie and proletariat classes, attempting to highlight the injustice and exploitation of the working class by the wealthy upper and middle class. Marx predicted that capitalism within a socioeconomic system would inevitably create internal tensions between social classes leading to its demise and replacement by a new system, communism.
Through this we have learned that as working class, we expect and accept that we will be exploited by the ruling class in terms of our surplus value. This is known as a crisis of Hegemony. They go on to say that we have internalised the DVS to such an extent that any other value system seems absurd, resulting in a state of false class consciousness. Marx believed that we will see a social revolution which will overthrow capitalism and replace it with true communism. Marxism sees religion as a feature which is only relevant in a society based on class division I.E the ruling classes and the working classes.
If I had to choose a type of government, I would support the Federalists. The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. Basically, they argue that the constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, there was no bill of rights, the national government could maintain an army in peacetime, Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power and the executive branch held too much power. The Antifederalists, were generally farmers, debtors, and other lower class people who were loyal to their state governments. Antifederalist leaders, including Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, typically enjoyed more wealth and power than the people they led.I am sure these seemed like legitimate claims at the time, however, they are really fears unfounded by any proof.
Meanwhile, Anti-Federalist believed power should remain with the states. As you can see the Anti-Federalist was against the constitution. “New Constitution Creates a National Government, Will not Abate Foreign Influence, Dangers of Civil War and Despotism“. The main reason they revoked the constitution is bad is because it divided the powers amount the government in 3 branches (Judicial, Legislation, Executive), so NO ONE had supreme power over. Anti-Federalist didn’t approved they wanted a bill of right instead.
Most of the power came in the expense of the states, which were no longer allowed to pass tariffs or issue money. The government got the right to declare state laws unconstitutional. But the Constitution did not leave the central government too powerful. They put internal and external restraints on the government. The Constitution
Durkheim sees anomie as responsible for the world’s disorder of economics- the lack of morality and regulation resulted in overpowering the weak; thus, he feels that only norms can prevent the abuse of power and calls for regulation and equal opportunity from birth- the greater the equal opportunity the less need for restraint. Marx looked at how capitalism separated humanity by making work a simple means of individual existence. In addition he describes society in terms of class and economic conflicts. Marx saw proletariat or people of a working class as being underneath the bourgeoisie or the capitalist of a modern society. Marx looked at how alienation of production of commodities by workers also leads to alienation of social life.
The degradation of dialect reveals how it is almost entirely impossible to object to the Party’s core beliefs. Through the protagonist character of Winston Smith, the importance of individualism is advocated through critical thinking. Firstly, the text illustrates how language and power can be used as a mechanism of control by discouraging an individual from expressing their true emotion. The controlled language, Newspeak, was created by the totalitarian state as a tool of power, its sole purpose being to restrict the people’s understanding of the real world. The gradually declining dialect limits the ideas that individuals have the potential of formulating and expressing, promoting a narrowing of thoughts and awareness to their system of control.
Weber believed it was linked to the type of job people could get, Weber thought differently to Marx about this, as marx believed it was due to owning factories or other resources, and weber thought it was due to skills and qualifications. Weber’s idea of class influenced the ideas of other sociologists, such as goldthorpe (1980). Goldthorpe derived a stratification scale which includes the Weberian concept of market position. This was felt by sociologists to be a more accurate technique of studying stratification, as a pose to just studying peoples jobs. Weber was skeptical about the possibility of the working class bonding together for revolutionary purposes, for example becoming class-conscious because of differences in status would always undermine any common cause.
Thucydides does not directly support the argument of the “classical model of politics” but his views of Political Realism sort of allude to it. If a government’s main motivation is just for power and it does not care at all about how ethical it is, there is a good chance it will end up becoming corrupt, as the “classical model of politics” suggests. Plato, in The Republic, argues that all of the political systems (democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, and timarchy) are inherently corrupt, and that the state should be governed by an elite class of educated philosophical-rulers, who would be trained from birth and selected on the basis of skill, as Plato describes: “those who have the greatest skill in watching over the community.” Plato also advocates, in The Republic, the abolishment of private property and the family among the ruling classes. This has caused many people to say that he was a communist, but many political scholars disregard this view, saying that the text implies that this will only extend to the ruling classes, and that ordinary citizens “will have enough private property to make the regulation of wealth and poverty a concern.” Essentially, Plato’s view goes along with the “classical model of politics” I mentioned above. He believes there are a number of different forms of government and he says that they are all inherently corrupt, which implies that, as mentioned above, each form
This theory was made well-liked to people by Karl Marx and Friedrich in their Communist Manifesto, 1848. So it clarifies that in Communism people will have no personal possession to the properties and the society should be equal. The people known as Anti-communists are actually defined for their position in opposition to Communism rather than their deeds and initiatives. These people say that the way of life in Communism is not accepted by anyone as a good one. Anyone alone may say that the way defined in Communism is a wrong way to lead a life and controlling life of someone living in the interior of a specific state is not correct either.