Obviously if a parent, or some other figure, was going to give away land or a certain object as an inheritance it would be important either to them, their family, or their group. This culture within the family, or group, would be destroyed because there would be no way to pass it on through the generations. Frank Zappa is quoted saying "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." This is so true. The communists want people to just give up their rightful inheritance and support them.
Why were so many Americans afraid of communism? Communism is a political theory started by Karl Marx and is based around the equality of society. Every man is equal and is paid according to their needs in society as opposed to their ranks, all property is publicly owned and therefore no man has an advantage over another. This effectively ends all wage labour as a doctor would be paid the same as a cleaner. Communism completely opposes capitalism, and any nation under communist rule would be lead by a single, unchallenged party which would strive for a higher social order.
In order for America to become an industrial power he wanted the strong central government to run the business and industries. During that time some people wished to only pay part of the national debt but Hamilton did not. He believed that the debt should be paid completely. To be able to pay the national debt he believed it was important to establish a national bank to establish good national credit (Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson). When he proposed the creation of the national debt the anti-federalist protested against this idea because in the Constitution it never stated anything about a bank.
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.
Poverty may mean that crime is the only way that the working class can survive, as crime may e the only way that they can obtain the consumer goods encouraged by the capitalist advertising, resulting in utilitarian crimes such as theft. However, it isn’t always utilitarian crime that the working class commit as sometimes the alienation and lack of control over their lives may lead to frustration and aggression which results in non-utilitarian crimes such as vandalism and violence. Marxist’s sometimes argue the state and law-making are a cause of crime because they believe that all laws serve the ruling class, most law is based on protecting private property. The crimes of the working class and ethnic minorities are punished harshly while crimes of the powerful go unnoticed. The ruling class also have the power to prevent the introduction of laws that would threaten their interests.
However, Gramsci argues that the ruling class domination can be overthrown where a classless communist society will be replaced. This is where the means of production benefits the society as a whole (equality). But in order to do so, working class must become conscious with the reality of their oppression. Gramsci refers to this as hegemony. Working class can develop ideas to challenge Proletariat hegemony through ‘dual consciousness’.
He is therefore considered a founding father of modern socialism and Communism. He believed that the statement, “the will of the majority is always correct” was completely wrong. He argued that the goal of government should be to secure freedom, equality, and justice for all. In his philosophy the will of the majority would hinder the will of the minority, and that the will of all was much more
The colonies received the bad end of the deal and were only being used for profit. Paine also suggested there be a distinction between society and government, making an even balance between the two so one does not overpower the other. Paine was against the ideal of a monarchy. He believed that all men are equal at creation and therefore the power difference between kings and their subjects should not exist. He believes the powers of the king should be sufficiently limited to prevent tyranny.
It would be a mistake if you were to eliminate the short story “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut from your text Literature Textbook. “Harrison Bergeron” is a valued story with underlying themes that are still relevant in today’s society. Vonnegut’s story notifies Americans of the dangers of creating a truly equivalent society in which its citizens must sacrifice their individuality and freedom to the government in order to create a place where all men are supposedly created equal. As we read the short story we discover that equality does not create the model most people would have anticipated but instead it forms a society of mindless humans who are handicapped and harmed by the government all in the name of balance. The endless search for equality in “Harrison Bergeron” is established in today’s society as we pursue for different ways to balance and create equalness between individuals, races, and genders but we learn that this balance comes at a price.
Postmodernists reject this view of Marxism, that we still live in a two-class society and the claim that education reproduces class inequality. Postmodernist sociologists such as Morrow and Torres see class divisions as no longer important and that society is now much more diverse and fragmented. Marxist approaches are useful in exposing the ‘myth of meritocracy’. They show the role that education plays as an ideological state apparatus, serving the interests of capitalism by reproducing and legitimating class inequality. However, postmodernists criticise Bowles and Gintis’ correspondence principle on the grounds that today’s post-Fordist economy requires schools to produce a very different kind of labour force from the one described by Marxists.