Socialism vs. Democracy Compare and Contrast Essay
The clear understanding of the various forms of both political and the economic systems is of paramount importance in effective governance of countries and their most critical institutions and industries. The understanding of these political and economic systems will help significantly in making good use of the philosophical issues in formulating the guiding policies to run these organization for the common good of all citizens of given countries.
Different countries of the world usually practice different approaches in providing various services to their people and this in most cases depends on the nature and the cultural practices of given parts of the world. It should be noted that some systems of governance may work so well in a given country, but this does not guarantee the effective operation in other countries if it is adopted.
In the recent time, the various countries are trying to adopt partially some aspects of governance and incorporating them in their systems to see if they can work productively and thus this has led to mixed systems of governance. For example, a governance system, which advocates for the market which is controlled by forces of demand, and can also implement some price controls on goods and services, which are so critical to its citizens. Thus, it can protect its people from exploitation from business people, who want to maximize their profits at the expense of their fellow citizens.
In this case, we are going to look at some differences between socialism and democracy and compare and contrast the fundamental believes and concepts (Morris, 2008, p. 1). We will also look at the key people who helped with the ideas which led to both socialism and democracy and also look at the countries where they are practiced. Finally, we will address the philosophical issues and how they support policy development in various countries and, also, in organizations.
Differences in socialism and democracy
The most distinct difference between the socialism and democracy is that in socialism we are mostly focusing our energies on the governance of the economic activities and the economic systems of a given country while in the democracy we are concentrating on the political governance of people and the various organizations in given counties of the world.
In socialism, we have the economic and the political activities concentrating on the ownership of the ways of production and sharing of the resources which are based on the collective property by the community as a whole. In these cases, the economic systems emphasize the running of corporative societies at the public level.
Here the production is done by people as a community at large in organized public associations and the benefits which accrue from these civic associations are shared on individual merits and also depending on the number of efforts a given member has rendered in such organization. In this case, democracy will only be focusing its efforts to ensure that these public associations involved in the production of essential goods and services are managed by under democratic terms.
This implies that the leadership which is governing these public corporations will have to be chosen by the majority and also the decisions be considered on majority basis since in democracy the guiding principle is the common presumption that majority is always right and their decisions rule those of minority (Viklund, 2006, p. 1).
This is clear evidence that the power to govern is derived by seeking a mandate from the people either directly from the people themselves or indirectly from their trusted representatives who have been given such mandate to choose on their behalf by the people themselves.
In the socialism there is excellent emphasizes on the adoption of the most recent and effective technological advancement to ensure that the different organizations are run by applications of scientific principles to make sure that economic activities are doing well. This will effectively counter check the adverse effects of capitalism from finding the entrance in a socialism community or nation in which a few business people take advantage over the others to enrich themselves.
It is also well known that the emergence of socialism was a result of efforts of people trying to curb the effects of industrialization and continued ownership of crucial sectors of the economy by private sectors. Some socialist advocates for the ways of production of goods and services and also their distribution to be put under state control and ownership while the others concentrate on putting the modes of production under the hands of the cooperative workers.
In the other side, democrats advocate or approve nationalization of the organizations, which offer some essential services and goods selectively. This means that it is only the organizations which are involved in providing the most necessary and critical products and services are supposed to be owned and controlled by the state or other wards the public as a whole (Sarup, 2006, p. 1).
It is also obvious that in socialism we have what can be described as a command economy. This is because the prices are pre-determined by use of try and error method by the responsible board which is in charge of fixing the prices of consumer goods and because the political system controls most of the production of essential products and services and also their distribution. This is quite different from democratic systems because of their political organizations which advocate for individual ownership of assets and, also, the private acquisition of business organizations (DuRand, 1997, p. 1).
Basic believes and concepts of socialism and democracy
The socialists believe in collective ownership of goods and services, and thus they are always ready and willing to sacrifice to higher magnitudes for the sake of betterment of the communities at large and not their well being alone. Their economic and political organizations are usually structured in a way in which they can promote the common good of all people.
Here community and public efforts are highly appreciated other than the individual efforts. Here the concept of planned economy is of great concern in the economic systems and also the political organizations in the sense that the number of goods and services to be produced and also to be distributed together with the recommended prices are usually pre-determined by the responsible departments in both the political organizations and, also, in the economic systems. In one way or the other democrats may tend to agree with socialist by trying to incorporate some of the socialism practices in their political organizations and the economic systems (Morris, 2008, p. 1).
For the democrats may decide to put measures to control the production and prices of some essential good to respond to the wishes of the majority who may not be in a position to afford some of the most basic and crucial goods and services. This will comply with the common belief of democracy that the wishes and decisions of the majority will always dominate under all situations.
Even though democrats can sometimes change their systems of governance to reflect on the wishes of the majority they firmly believe in the free market whereby the forces of demand and supply determine the prices of various goods and services.
Karl max and Aristotle
Karl max came up with what is recently called Marxism in which he tried to explain how socialism came about. He argued that conscious of the people who work very hard to earn a living in terms of salaries and wages made fell like slaves and creating the desire for them to seek freedom from such slavery and drop the passion for being capitalists and go for collective ownership (Crespo, 2003, p. 1). He also reasoned that it is the social well being which influences the consciousness which is very vital for the existence of humanity and thus promotion of socialism.
Socialism is practiced in countries like the Republic of China whereby the socialist and centrally planned economies are practiced, and it is worth to note that here the cooperative workers are highly regarded. On the other hand, the Aristotle has worked very hard to explain the democratic forms of organizations.
In this case, Aristotle contrasted the governance by many people, governance by a few people and governance by a single person. Here he suggested that the most essential principle of democracy is freedom and liberty. He also said that the decision made by the majority of the people should be taken to form justice (Baron, 2008, p. 1).
Democracy is mostly practiced in most parts of the world because it is widely acceptable by people even though it is not friendly with some parts of the world and especially in African, even though it is highly embraced in the United States of America.
It is evident that the philosophical issues and how they support the formation of the various policies in both socialism and democracy are of paramount importance in multiple governments. This is because it will help in evaluating the various political and economic organizations in a given country. It will be for well good of all governments to adopt forms of governance which will promote the continued existence of humankind.
Here we have looked at differences between socialism and democracy, their most common believes and concepts and also the people who led to the ideas of socialism and democracy and the countries where are practiced. We have also incorporated the philosophical issues and how they support the policies mentioned.
Baron, D. (2008). The Difference Between Socialism and Communism. Web.
Crespo, P. (2003). Democracy & free markets vs. socialism. Web.
Durand. C. (1997). The Idea of Democracy and the Idea of Socialism. Web.
Morris, D. (2008). Socialism VS Democracy Obama VS McCain. Web.
Sarup, K. (2006). Democracy vs. Communism: Lessons from history. Web.
Viklund, A. (2006). Democracy and Socialism. Web.
The Cold War Between the Union Soviet Socialist Republic and the United States of America Research Paper
The Cold War The Cold War is an interesting name given to a conflict between two superpowers. But there is no other way to describe the conflict between the Union Soviet Socialist Republic (“USSR”) and the United States of America because the armies from both countries did not clash in a battlefield.
The conflict was played out in the anticipation of World War III through the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction as well as through proxy wars fought by their respective allies.
The United States played defense and at the same time became proactive by supporting other nations to strategically weaken the power of the USSR.
The conflict between the USSR and U.S. did not come from the desire to expand their territories. The Cold War is the byproduct of a conflict in ideology. The United States government is a government by the people and of the people while the USSR is a government ruled by the communist party.
The Americans believed in the principles of democracy and free enterprise while the Russians believed that the whole world must convert to a system of governance according to the teachings of Karl Marx and Lenin.
At the core of these teachings is the idea of social equality as the masses triumph over the elite and creating a utopian society in the process. It is a seemingly attractive proposition but Karl Marx and Lenin did not anticipate the impact of human nature such as greed, lust for power, the need to control people, and more importantly the corruption that comes from having a central government.
Nevertheless, the advocates of communism felt so strongly for their cause that they are willing to transform nations into a communist country and one by one they came into the fold starting from China then North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and Eastern Europe and even half of present day Germany.
It must be made clear that the dilemma brought by the Cold War did not happen overnight. It can be argued that without the implications of World War II then there would be no two superpowers trying to subdivide the world into what they label as the free world and the Communist bloc. The end of World War created shift in the political arena creating a vacuum that must be occupied by America or the USSR.
At the end of World War II the Germans were devastated as well as its allies Italy, Japan, and the Ottoman Empire. Great Britain emerged victorious, however, its people paid a tremendous price for glory and so after becoming the unofficial leader in two world wars, the British decided that they no longer have the energy and the resources to become the watchdog and enforcer of international laws in the international stage.
France, Belgium and other European powers were also in a state of decline. As a result there were only two superpowers left standing and these are the United States and the USSR.
American presidents in the post-World War II era could not help but be threatened by the rapid acceleration of the USSR in terms of political, economic and military might. It was an understandable reaction; the fear regarding the rise of Soviet power is expected when the memory of Nazi Germany was still fresh in the minds of American political leaders.
It was impossible to ignore the behavior of Stalin and later on Khrushchev and not consider their propensity for world domination. As Eastern Europe and most of Asia went under the influence of the Soviets there was cause for worry. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan their worst fears were confirmed.
The unfolding events from China’s decision to openly embrace Marxism-Leninism to the Korean War of the 1950s prompted the American government to strengthen its military capability. This was viewed as a threat by the USSR and so in response they enhanced their fighting capability.
It can be argued that most of the time the purpose of the massive military build-up was just a mere show for the purpose of telling the world who possess the best form of governance. This chest-thumping and ego boosting activities extended even to outer space as both countries tried to outdo each other when it comes to their space program.
However, the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction as well as the funding of an oversized military force created a stalemate. The United States government and the Communist Party of the USSR both understood so well that if World War III becomes a reality then the combined arsenal of these countries can destroy Central Asia and North America in mutually destructive attack.
When the Soviets began to finance and support the takeover of weak monarchies and governments and transform nations almost overnight into communist countries the United States government found itself in a terrible dilemma. After World War II the Allied forces shared a common sentiment that nothing good can be had out of war.
The promulgation of democracy as well as the establishment of the United Nations headquarters in the U.S. mainland made it morally and politically impossible for the American government to attack the USSR. And more importantly the prospect of a nuclear holocaust forces them to be defensive minded. Nevertheless, the United States and the USSR found a way to battle each other out in numerous theaters of war.
It is now known as “proxy war” because American forces and Soviet forces did not actually meet in the battlefield but their proxies. The best example is the Korean War in the 1950s and the Afghanistan conflict where the United States government provided military aid to Afghan warriors in order for them to defeat the superior forces of the Soviets.
The first proxy war was held in the Korean peninsula that resulted in what is now known as North and South Korea. The allies of both the United States and the USSR did the dirty work for them while they stayed in the background. It was a proactive participation on both players because they supplied intelligence gathered through their spy networks, state-of-the art weapons, and provided help whenever it is needed such as logistical support.
The alliance that the United States made with Korea in World War II made this possible. On the other side of the fence the alliance of USSR with China gave them the ability to venture into the Far East.
But According to one historian it was the first time when a proxy war almost became a full-blown war and he wrote, “It was the only occasion in the Cold War when the military forces of the People’s Republic of China, the Soviet Union, and the United States us its Western allies) met in combat … the Korean War was not merely a war fought between proxies of the major powers, like the latter conflicts in Vietnam or Afghanistan, but a much more significant conflagration.”
It was almost like seeing the beginnings of World War III but the United States and the USSR were clever enough to mask the truth by making it appear that it was a war fought by armies in the North and South of Korea in a fight for the Korean peninsula.
Aside from the war in Vietnam, it can be argued that the second major proxy war was held in Afghanistan. It has to be pointed out that the nation of Afghanistan was a creation of Great Britain as it tried to develop a buffer zone protecting its interests from other powerful nations in the region. But as mentioned earlier the end of the Second World War also revealed the depleted power of the British government. Moreover, there was no use to spend money in maintaining forces in a land lacking in desirable levels of natural resources.
In the words of one commentator, “The Afghan’s homeland is green and pleasant only in the memory of the exiles … summers are hot and dry and winters bitter, especially in the high country, and from November to mid-March snow makes travel difficult.” The Soviets however saw a strategic location and they were more than willing to take over.
According to Alexander Haig, the former U.S. secretary of state, “The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to undermine the strengthening of the Islamic fundamentalist belt at its southern borders.” But there is another major reason why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
In the words of one Russian historian, “by the mid-seventies our military had reached a state of parity with America … they (USSR) were anxious to try their strength somewhere” and Afghanistan seemed to be the best place to test newly acquired military advantage. The stage was set and the war between two superpowers resulted in hundreds of casualties and yet it was not clear what the actual outcome of the war was.
Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Carter played important roles during the Cold War but the person who ended it was none other than Ronald Reagan. His reaction to the Soviet threat has been celebrated in books and movies.
It was truly an amazing feat but no one really knew the burden that he carried with him during those dark days when the whole nuclear program of the Soviets were focused on the destruction of the United States of America. The following is a mere overview of what the political arena looked like during the time of Reagan:
By New Year’s Day of 1980, the international wreckage caused by recent Soviet advances was visible virtually everywhere. In Southeast Asia, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos had fallen into Soviet orbit; in southern Africa, Angola and Mozambique had fallen, with the aid of tens of thousands of Cuban troops; in the Horn of Africa, it was Ethiopia and South Yemen, again with the help of Cuba; in the Caribbean, Nicaragua and Grenada; and finally …. like a dagger at the heart of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan.
There were many historians and political analyst who argued that the success of Reagan’s administration when it comes to the Soviet threat is attributed to his being a realist.
Leaders like Truman and Carter, “tried to play it safe and they espoused the principles of détente and containment to be their main foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union.” No U.S. president dared to imagine what the world will be like in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust and so the goal was to prevent war at all cost.
Reagan did not believe in the exchange of intercontinental ballistic missiles loaded with nuclear warheads. However, he understood the following principle: “Every single geopolitical nation, together with its current leadership, struggles for power and wants more of it; every single geopolitical nation, together with its current leadership, struggles for security and wants more of it.
He knew that the Soviet Union will not stop until the perceived threat to the sustainability of their way of life has been eliminated and the thorn in their path is the United States.
Reagan was ready to fight and he used his great power of communication to clarify to the American public what they are facing. He said that nothing good can come out from the Communist Party and he labeled the USSR as the evil empire of Communism. As a result he prepared the country in order to defend itself and if needed to counterattack. Reagan authorized multi-billion dollar expenditure in the creation of the greatest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction the American people had ever seen.
Reagan worked tirelessly to weaken the hegemony built by the Soviet Union and he did it through an arms race. He was always doing something to create an advantage over the Soviets. But after eight years of massive military build-up he recognized that the Cold War had to end.
In an extraordinary feat of political maneuvering he met with his Russian counterpart, Gorbachev and using his skills and charm once again he made the Soviets agree to his terms and that is to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenal of both countries. In a few years time Reagan succeeded and the Soviet Union was no more. Regan ended the Cold War.
The Cold War began after the end of the Second World War. In the United States there were many presidents who tried to deal with the Soviet threat and their strategies range from appeasement to the participation in proxy wars.
Nobody wanted to start a Third World War. The United States had a defensive mindset and yet at the same time proactive in doing indirect actions in order to weaken the Soviet Union’s power.
However, it was Ronald Reagan who created deliberate steps to finally end the Cold War. He did by spending billions of dollars to create a deterrent and in the final stages he masterminded an arms reduction program that forced the Soviet Union to end its bid to conquer the world.
- Carter, Malkasian. The Korean War (University Park, IL.: Osprey Publishing, 2001), p.7.
- David, Isby, Russia’s War in Afghanistan (UK: Osprey Publishing), p.3.
- Artyom, Borovik, The Hidden War: A Russian Journalist’s Account of the Soviet War in Afghanistan, (New York: Grove Press, 1990), 9.
- James Huston, Outposts and Allies: U.S. Army Logistics in the Cold War, (New Jersey:Associated University Press, 1988), 20.
- Andrew Busch, A Ronald Reagan and the Politics of Freedom, (MD: Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers, 2001), 186.
- Odd Westad, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times.(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 247.
- Ashley Tellis, “Reconstructing Political Realism: The Long March to Scientific Theory,” in Roots of Realism, ed. Benjamin Frankel (Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass, Inc., 1996), 3.
- Peggy Noonan, “Ronald Reagan: He Brought Big Government to its Knees and Stared Down the Soviet Union,” Time Magazine.
- Alexei Filitov, Victory in the Postwar Era: Despite the Cold War or Because of it?” In The End of the Cold War, ed. Michael Hogan (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 78.
- Lee Edwards, The Essential Ronald Reagan, (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005), 77.
Borovik, Artyom. The Hidden War: A Russian Journalist’s Account of the Soviet War in Afghanistan. New York: Grove Press, 1990.
Busch, Andrew. A Ronald Reagan and the Politics of Freedom. MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001.
Edwards, Lee. The Essential Ronald Reagan, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005.
Filitov, Alexei. Victory in the Postwar Era: Despite the Cold War or Because of it?”
In The End of the Cold War, edited by Michael Hogan, 77-90. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Huston, James. Outposts and Allies: U.S. Army Logistics in the Cold War. New Jersey: Associated University Press, 1988.
Isby, David. Russia’s War in Afghanistan. UK: Osprey Publishing, 2002.
Malkasian, Carter. The Korean War. University Park, IL.: Osprey Publishing, 2001.
Noonan, Peggy. “Ronald Reagan: He Brought Big Government to its Knees and Stared Down the Soviet Union,” Time Magazine. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988167,00.html
Tellis, Ashley. “Reconstructing Political Realism: The Long March to Scientific Theory,” In Roots of Realism, edited by Benjamin Frankel, 3-20. Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass, Inc., 1996.
Westad, Odd. The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Socialist Health Care System Advantages Essay
The three main health care systems are socialist, capitalist and communist system. Decisions on which of the three systems to follow mostly depends on the kind of governance in the land. Arguably, the socialist health system is the best of the three health system.
This is because it ensures all the people in the republic get cheap or even free health care. Health is one of the basic necessities of a human being and therefore it would be such that majority of the people in the society are able to access it.
According to the principles of World Health Organization, everyone should be able to access good quality health care. This will be well taken care of in scenario of a socialist health system because it is a government policy to have everyone incorporated in this system.
Considering that there is a big number of people who cannot afford expensive health care, socialist health system offer a good alternative system of health submission. This means even the poor in the society have their health issues well taken care of.
The socialist system is also non-discriminatory in nature, in that even the minority in the society as well as women and children will enjoy available and accessible health care. Economic accessibility is one factor of the socialist system that makes it more suitable than the other systems of health care (Bowling and Ebrahim 17).
The government may introduce a flat rate that is affordable to the people in the society this means that all the people are well taken care and medicine is cheaper to them.
The fact that due to the low cost of health system in the society few people will be willing to invest in the health sector is an added benefit because people who may just invest in the health sector just to gain profits without the desire to put people’s heath demands first will be minimized.
In turn it means that only the people who are conscious about people’s health are in the health system. Ownership of factors of production is controlled by the government in a socialist set up, which means that the government controls the production of the medicine.
The centralization of the system ensures that quality and amount is well controlled, which may not be the case in other systems, for example, the capitalist where profits gain is the main driving force. Issues of corruption are also cut out in socialist system because every citizen has a say on to what he/she expects of the system and the system is not controlled by a selected few.
Finally, this system can be of benefit to get statistics about the general population that may be beneficial to their planning, for example, a Maternity and Child Welfare Law adopted in Japan helps the government know the number of birth of children, since every pregnancy has to be registered. This system therefore provides the administration with useful information for the purpose of shaping health and child care policy (Spender and Cheris 964).
Many countries have adopted this system and modified it to meet their countries mode of operation. This has led to reforms in these countries, like the introduction of compulsory health insurance legislation in Russian in 1991. The American affordable health care Act signed into law in 2009 has its bases on the principle of the socialist system that gives every citizen a chance to get quality health care at affordable costs.
However, this health care system has its limitations. Paying of high taxes by the public is one of the main disadvantages as this system calls for the administration to spend so much to support it. There is also problem of distribution of resources, and if not well controlled, this system may be a problem since some areas may have an under production, while others face overproduction.
Bowling, Ann and Ebrahim, Shah. “Handbook of health research methods: investigation, measurement and analysis.” Berkshire: McGraw-Hill International. 2005. Print.
Spender, Dale and Cheris, Kramarae. “Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Education: Health to Hypertension.” Routledge: Routledge, 2000. Print.
To what extent did the text promote socialism? Analytical Essay
Socialism is a form of governance in which political and economic ideologies rest on the concept that the society as a whore should have the responsibility to regulate production, distribution as well as exchange. This means that the power over these activities is not vested over individuals or bodies but rests on the entire society.
This is contrary to capitalism in which the economic processes of production, distribution and the final exchange of commodities are controlled by individuals or business entities for the sake of making profits.
A review of the text The Jungle has some elements of the two systems. This question thus seeks to establish the grounds on which the text promotes socialism as opposed to capitalism. The capitalist economic system, being controlled by individuals or even entities that are profit oriented, is characterized by the problem of consumers being at risk of exploitations by the players in the economy.
The entities in their bids to maximize on their profits will for instance be driven by the need to minimize on their expenditures in the entire production and delivery process while at the same time maximize on their revenues.
Socialists condemn the capitalist system on the ground that the capitalists are not actively involved in the economy but on the contrary exploit workers and consumers for their economic gains (Blacksacademy 1).
The negative effects of the capitalist form of government are identified to be one of the themes that the writer of the book dwelt on. A variety of expressions as expressed in the book are basically geared towards offering a criticism of the capitalist system that was associated with a lot of ill on the people. The writer was particular on issues that portrayed the system as “inhuman, destructive, unjust, brutal, and violent” towards workers (Sparknotes 1).
The level of greed that is realized on the side of the capitalist is even manifested in the manner in which production processes are undertaken under unhealthy conditions because the capitalists owes no responsibility to either their workers or even consumers of their products. The writer then brings in the concept of socialism to as a perfect solution to the problems that people were facing under capitalism.
The final presentation of socialism as a way out thus indicates the author’s motive to promote socialism. He put the two systems on either side of the extremes. While he viewed capitalism as a harm and a form of evil to the people, he unveiled socialism as a perfect solution for the problems that people were facing (Sparknotes 1).
The extensive criticism of the capitalist system by the writer is evident in a grater potion of the book through quotes that were directly aimed at attacking the ills of the capitalist system. It majorly exposed the sufferings that people went through in the hands of the capitalists.
The quote “and for this, at the end of the week, he will carry home three dollars to his family, being his pay at the rate of five cents per hour- just about his proper share of the million and three quarters of children who are now engaged in earning their living in the united states” (Sinclair 68) was for instance an illustration of low pays that forced parents to send their minor children to work.
The quote is about a young kid who was forced to look for work in order to earn for a living. The tough economic condition that faced the people in this particular case forced a parent to seek a priest in altering the kid’s age on documents so that he could appear older and obtain a job.
It was the hard economic situation posed by the capitalists that pressed parents so hard to an extent that they had to use their kids for extra earnings (Sinclair 68).
Another Quote, “here was a population, low class, mostly foreign, hanging always on the verge of starvation” also expressed the oppressive conditions that the people lived in (Sinclair 100). The system is again relayed as irresponsible and does not offer sufficient salaries to its workers. The low wages together with lack of job opportunities thus forced people to keep up with poor conditions.
The quote, “they were beaten, they had lost the game, they were swept aside” as expressed by the writer in relation to the economic hardship that people went through also illustrate the ill nature of the capitalist system that subjected people to suffering (Sinclair 129).
The text is thus a basic critique of the negative side of capitalism and offers socialism as an alternative to the suffering that capitalism has subjected people into. It is thus in full support of socialism as a way to save the people (Sinclair 100).
The plight of immigrants as illustrated in the text
Immigrants refer to people who move from their original country into another country with the main aim of acquiring permanent residence in their new country. Hard economic situations in native countries or regions play an important role in immigration of individuals to other countries that are perceived to have better conditions (Brainy 1).
Immigration also formed a center of focus of the writer through the book. The people who are considered under the book were a group of individuals who moved into the country from Lithuania.
The immigrants were driven by the notion that they would be able to get a better life in terms of employment conditions and wages and by the dream of having a happy life that they could not afford in their native country.
The immigrants can also be said to have been driven by the overall perception of America that is viewed as a land of justice in which people are justly rewarded for their efforts in work.
Contrary to their expectations, the immigrants arrive in the United States to find an extreme level of exploitation in workplaces. The immigrants came face to face with the fact that the land was full of “moral corruption, crime, and graft enabled one to succeed materially” (Sparknotes 1).
The evil of capitalism which are exposed in the text with respect to the treatment of workers who represents immigrants reveals to a great extent the plight of the immigrants as per the text. The living condition that the individuals were subjected to was actually short of what the immigrants had expected in America. The quote, “here is a population, low class and mostly foreign” directly shows the way in which the immigrants lived (Sinclair 100).
The author’s representation of the level of suffering that was characterized by economic strain forcing people to the extent of starving gives an illustration of what the immigrants went through. According to the presentation, the immigrants were subjected to conditions that were not sufficient to sustain their well being.
Even though some jobs were available, there was the issue of low wages that was hardly enough to sustain the workers. Butterly and Sherpherd defined starvation as the state in which an individual lives on insufficient food for the body. Such experience has impact on health especial if an individual is to at the same time work (Butterly and Sherpherd 30).
Apart from the poor living condition that the immigrants were forced to adopt due to economic factors, they were also subjected to harsh working conditions. As Sinclair explained it, the immigrants had no choice about their work environment. He for instance argued that the immigrants were compelled do such works.
The phrase “it was stupefying, brutalizing; it left her no time to think, no strength for anything” (Sinclair 129) also explains the plight of the immigrants (Sinclair 129). They were thus overworked by their employers and at the same time subjected to degrading jobs all at wages that were just but peanut. The workers pay was at the discretion of the capitalist employers who were utterly oppressive.
This was before legislations such as the “fair labor standards act” were enacted to protect workers (Jobs 1). The lives of the immigrants was also described through the phrase that “they would stir beneath the burden that lay upon them” (Sinclair 129), an indication that the immigrants were neglected by the government to their own suffering (Sinclair 129).
Why the text was influential in changing the practices at the meat packing industry
The publication of the ‘Jungle’ formed a basis for changes in the meat industry. This section establishes the significance of the book to the changes. The author, in attempt to reveal the nature of the industries made a lot of illustrations. Expressions such as “a man could run his hands over these piles of meat and sweep off handful of dried dung of rats” for example relayed the filthy state of the industries (Sinclair 128).
The lack of concern to correct such hazards was also expressed by the fact that “the man who did the shoveling did not trouble to lift out a rat even when he saw one” (Sinclair 128). The poor hygiene in the industries was also reflected in the fact that workers had no place for cleaning their hands prior to meals and were washing their hands “in the water that was to be ladled into the sausage” (Sinclair 128).
These exposed the conditions to the public leading to outcry. It is actually reported that the book is what led to legislations that were enacted in the year 1906 such as the food and drug act. It therefore directly influenced the changes that were felt in the meat industry (FSDI 1). The book drove socialists to rise for changes in the industry following its publication (Students 1).
List of important quotes from the text
Though the whole book is geared towards revealing the suffering that the people went through and the fact that their hope lied in socialism, there are some quotes that outstandingly expressed the writer’s point of view. The following phrases systematically reveal the opinion of the author:
- “But no, their bells were not ringing for him-their Christmas was not meant for him, they were simply not counting him at all. He was of no consequence –he was flung aside, like a bit of trash, the carcass of some animal” (Sinclair 154)
- “They had dreamed of freedom; of a chance to look about them and learn something; to be decent and clean, to see their child grow up to be strong. And it was al gone—it would never be! (Sinclair 129)
- “Why could they find no better way to punish him than to leave three weak women and six helpless children to starve and freeze? That was their law that was their justice! (Sinclair 154)
- here was a population, low class, mostly foreign, hanging always on the verge of starvation” (Sinclair 100)
- “Connor, the boss of the loading gang! The man who had seduced his wife-who had sent him to prison, and wrecked his home, ruined his life! He stood there, staring, with the light shining full upon him.” (Sinclair 277)
All the above quotes reveal suffering directed to some group of people. The quotes significantly make a direct contribution to the theme of the book that revealed the capitalist system as a harsh and inappropriate one against the dream of America. Such extracts offers the basis of the author’s main presentation.
Blacksacademy. Durkheim’s account of socialism. Blacksacademy. Web.
Brainy. Definition of immigration. Brainy Quote, 2011. Web.
Butterly, John and Sherpherd, Jack. Hunger: The Biology and Politics of Starvation. Lebanon, NH: UPNE. Print.
Jobs. Workers’ rights- wages and hours. State University, 2011. Web.
Sinclair, Upton. The jungle. Charleston, SC : Forgotten Books, 1935. Print.
Bookrags. The jungle study guide. Bookrags, 2011. Web.
Sparknotes. The jungle. Spark Notes, 2011. Web.
FSDI. Agency history. FSIS, 2007. Web.
Students. Report: the jungle. Sabrinma, 2007. Web.
Thinking Government: Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism in Post World War II Canada Essay
Even in some of the prosperous nations of the world where its citizens enjoy a high standard of living, it is difficult to find people that are generally pleased with the way their politicians governed their nation. This is attributed to the complexity of the problems that political leaders have to deal with as well as the inevitable consequences of trying to manage diverse groups of people with different beliefs, interests and ideas on how to run things.
But there is another reason for the differences in opinion when it comes to governance and state presence; it can be understood through the ideologies that people use to interpret the world around them. Three of the most basic ideologies are: conservatism, socialism and liberalism. In the case of Canada its political leaders and its citizens hope to have a middle-ground and not to sway to extremes.
Conservatism is a strong belief in the capability of the individual. Those who adhere to this ideology believe that the individual is the driving force of social progress (Johnson, p.72). Although others would generally agree to this idea, conservatism is distinguished even further on the basis of how a conservative tend to view the role of the state in his or her life.
In this way of thinking the individual does not only have the right to be free this political ideology also stresses the principle that “every individual should be free to ‘ride to the top of life’; to acquire wealth, prestige, and personal power; and to make use of these acquisitions as he or she deems fit” (Johnson, p.72). At first glance this may seem to be a selfish view of life. Furthermore, it is a highly competitive way to live.
Much is given on individual liberties but when it comes to governance conservatism creates two major implications. First of all there is a disdain for big governments or more specifically the power of the government to interfere in the lives of the citizens.
This leads to the second implication which was summarized by political scientists in the following statement: “nothing can be guaranteed in life and that all individuals are also free to fail, to stumble to the bottom, to find poverty and insignificance if they fail to make the best of the opportunities presented to them” (Johnson, p.72). In other words those who had fallen on hard times should not expect any assistance from the government.
Socialism on the other hand is the belief that society and not the individual should be the center of human interaction (Johnson, p.79). This does not mean that socialists do not value liberty and human rights but in the context of the community. Everyone must work together to attain the common good.
There must also be an equal distribution of wealth and power. It also means that society must allow a central government to coordinate and regulate everything. This means greater role for the state to make an impact in the lives of people. However, this can also mean an over-reliance for government help.
In the case of Canada, the citizens are fortunate to have leaders who were able to steer the nation towards the middle-ground. It is labeled as modern liberalism. According to one commentary modern liberalism is the striving to blend the best of both worlds of conservatism and socialism.
The main goal of liberals is to create a “coherent, balanced, pragmatic, yet principled understanding of socio-economic life and the purpose of government” (Johnson, p.90). When conservatism and socialism were blended together to form modern liberalism it greatly benefited Canada. The positive transformation was evident after the Second World War.
Post World War II Canada
David Johnson made a good point when he questioned the lack of enthusiasm with regards to the discussion of Canadian politics when in fact Canadians enjoy a high standard of living compared to the rest of the world.
The said author even expounded on this statement by asserting that, “While we may have more in common with Americans than we usually like to admit, it is generally true that few of use actually desire to live in the United States or believe that the overall living standard in that country is superior to ours” (Johnson, p.28). There is a basis for this conclusion.
Canadians take pride in their health care system – it is a system that is publicly administered and funded (Johnson, p.28). This ensures that all Canadians can have access to top-quality health care regardless if the individual can actually pay for the said medical services.
There are only a few nations in the world that can boast of the same service from the government. Even Canada’s neighbor in the South is currently embroiled in a polarizing debate regarding their health care system. Many Americans are extremely frustrated and dissatisfied with the kind of medical assistance they are receiving from the government. This is especially true for the poor citizens of that country.
Healthcare is just the beginning, many Canadians take for granted the fact that their children have access to an effective and efficient education system that allows for primary and secondary education. All of these are financed by the provincial and federal government (Johnson, p.28).
There is more that Canadians can be proud of when it comes to quality education available for Canadian citizens. Consider for instance that a college student that meets the requirements of admission can immediately gain access to a life-enhancing education “with the majority of its costs borne by the state” (Johnson, p.28). There are only a few nations in the world that can make the same claim.
The icing on the cake when it comes to the government funded service is none other than the Canadian welfare system wherein the state contributes to the financial security of its senior citizens. For the working people on the other hand the government has a federal employment insurance programs that takes care of them in the event that they are unemployed.
At the same time the government has established a system wherein that does not only assure of income support but also the creation of job-related initiatives to help the unemployed get back to work.
Furthermore, there is the provincial worker’s compensation system that takes care of employees who were injured while doing their jobs. They can expect to receive compensation for income lost as well as injuries sustained (Johnson, p.28). Canadian citizens who fell on hard times, cannot get a job and do not have a network of support that can help them get back on their feet should be relieved that they can receive basic food, clothing, and shelter so that they would never have to die from hunger and suffer the fate of homeless people.
Hugging the Middle
It is important to stay in the middle. The Canadian government and its citizens cannot afford to swing to both extremes. If the government swings towards conservatism then the poor are left to fend for themselves. However, if it swings towards an extreme form of socialism then people are not held responsible for their actions and would demand more assistance from the government without doing their share to become a productive citizen.
Yet even if politicians and their constituents would love to be in the middle, it is clear that in the past decades the government has played a bigger role in Canada. In addition, one can argue that the policies and steps taken by the government seem to lean towards socialism. Consider for instance gun control, human rights legislation, multiculturalism policy, environmental regulation, health and safety regulation, regional equalization, and support for Canadian arts and culture.
These policies and activities point towards the idea that the government is using its resources and its influence to try to bring all citizens towards a better life instead of simply watching on the sidelines and wait for them to develop the means to increase wealth and standard of living.
The government does not turn a blind eye when people suffer and in fact the government has taken steps to ensure that most of the people are living comfortable lives.
According to another commentary “the state presence is substantial in this country because, in the past, most Canadians have been supportive of a significant development and growth of the state to meet certain needs and wants through the political and governmental process” (Johnson, p.29).
Nevertheless, the heightened participation of the government in Canadian society is something that is not considered to be praiseworthy for many Canadians.
There are those who are not yet satisfied with the improvements made in post World War II Canada. According to political analysts, “The irony here is that, while many Canadians value a wide range of the specific policies and programs provided by Canadian governments and hold high expectations of what the state should be doing to protect and promote the quality of life for themselves and others, these same citizens are critical of … the actual institutions of the state from which they receive these services” (Johnson, p.29).
This however, is a clear indication that Canada is not going towards conservatism or socialism but firmly planted in the middle.
In the 21st Century
The issue regarding political ideologies was brought to the fore recently because the Conservatives have won a majority for the first time in 23 years (Coyne, p.1). There are even political scientists who are concerned that the liberal party could no longer mount a decent challenge against the onslaught of conservatism (Whitaker, p.1). It is therefore understandable why people are questioning as to the direction that the country is heading to.
The fear that Canada is going to shift towards conservatism is unsubstantiated. The argument seems to be based on one thing only and that is on the result of the recent triumph of the Conservatives in Parliament. But if one utilizes the usual method to gauge what type of political ideology is being used to run the nation and develop policies in the process then it will reveal that Canada is still in the middle-ground not shifting towards conservatism or socialism.
This can be seen in evaluating what has been done in recent years. This does not require a great deal of work because it is easy to see that the government continues to be the central power in Canadian society. The government continues to play a vital role in the economy and security of this nation. The average Canadian citizen wakes up to the realization that the state has provided basic services that is expensive to maintain and yet the services continue up to this day because the government is still doing its responsibilities.
The health care and education system is still in place and with a generous contribution from the government to ensure that all people are safe, secure and can be assured of assistance if needed. An overview of Canada’s budget for 2011 is also a major confirmation that this country is not yet controlled by elitists and powerful individuals that may see their advantage to prevent the government from establishing regulations for banking and finance.
Going back to the overview of the 2011 budget one can see that the government still plays a dominant role. Consider for instance that there is a proposed low-tax plan to ensure growth. This means that the Canadian government is taking a more pro-active role in reviving the economy. There are also steps made to support job creation (Government of Canada, p.1).
If the political climate has shifted to conservatism then the government would not spend precious resources to help struggling citizens to get back on their feet. On the contrary the Canadian government is busy spending money to enhance the guaranteed income supplement (Government of Canada, p.1). In addition the government continues to invest heavily in innovation, education and training so that Canadians have the necessary skills needed to compete in the marketplace.
The overwhelming success of the conservatives in Parliament was a cause for concern for those who believe that the Canadian government must continue to stay in the middle and to bring the best of both worlds and sustain a liberal form of government. The reason for doing so is that there is overwhelming evidence that Canadians are better off if the government continues to provide basic services and actively investing in things that help the average Canadian enjoy a high standard of living.
The shift towards conservatism would mean a significant decrease in spending and less participation of the government when it comes to financing and development of programs that could help those who are struggling form the effects of an economic downturn.
However, there is no substantial proof that the political system has indeed shifted towards the right. Canada continues to benefit from a strong state presence. There seems to be indication that the status quo is about to change.
The recent report regarding the national budget confirms that the government is willing to continue to spend to sustain an enviable health care and education system. Nevertheless, one has to agree that the success of the conservatives in recent years is suggestive that someday they would make their move and change core policies of government but that time has not yet come.
Coyne, Andrew. “Finally, time for a real agenda.” Web.
Government of Canada. “Budget in Brief.” Web.
Johnson, David. Thinking Government: public sector management in Canada. Ontario: Broadview Press, Ltd., 2006. Print.
Whitaker, Reg. “Is the government party over?” Web.
Liberalist and Socialist Responses to Khomeini Term Paper
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).
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.
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
Zedong, Mao. Democratic Dictatorship. Basic postulates.1949. Web. www.latest-science-articles.com/…/The-Study-of-the-Relationship-between-Lenin-Oriental-Theory-and-Mao-zedong-Thoug-6
Agents of Socialism Essay
Children acquire social experiences from the society, and this helps them to live and interact well with other people. Socialism refers to the process that enables people to learn their culture, language and other aspects of their society. This process starts from the time a child is born and continues until when it matures and it involves agents like the media, family, society, peers, schools and churches. This essay investigates the agent of socialism that has the greatest impact on the opinion of an individual regarding political issues.
The family shapes the political views of an individual more than other agents of socialism due to the following reasons. First, it brings people very close to one another compared to other agents of socialism and thus enables children to learn communication and socialization skills. In addition, family ties play significant roles in educating children regarding politics, religion, tradition and nature. They learn the differences between various aspects of life like political parties, religions and cultures.
Secondly, the family trains children to distinguish between good and bad behavior; therefore, they will always look for these qualities before choosing which political party to follow. On the other hand, other agents of socialism may not distinguish between good and bad and thus they give individuals options to choose from. However, the family ensures its members follow a particular perception about political issues.
The comments that parents make regarding political parties will influence the decisions their children make in the future; therefore, most parents will aspire to influence their children to follow their political parties. Those who make bad remarks about a political party will make their children to believe that the party does not support democracy or constitutional issues. Consequently, their children will despise people who are affiliated to that political party.
Thirdly, people have the right to join political parties of their choices, and this decision is influenced by the policies and leaders in these parties. When children grow up they try to find out the political parties their parents prefer and investigate the issues that make them to be members of these parties.
However, this does not affect their perception unless their parents are staunch followers of these parties. Family members cannot disagree due to political differences compared to work mates, neighbors and peers; therefore, the family has major impacts on the political views of an individual. This means that when children realize that their parents are ardent members of a political party they will follow suit and start accompanying them to political meetings.
Moreover, children get social security and confidence by ensuring that their political views are similar to those of their parents. Family members are likely to have similar political views than friends or work mates; therefore, they influence an individual easily because they have limited options. Therefore, the family plays significant roles in shaping the perception of their children regarding political issues.
Lastly, children spent more time with their parents and other family members compared to other agents of socialization. Therefore, they learn a lot of political issues from their parents since all their childhood years are spent next to them. On the other hand, schools, churches and friends are not very close to individuals because their interactions are limited by circumstances.
Children develop communication skills and learn other aspects of life from their societies to become independent and productive individuals. Family members have tight relationships; therefore, they can exchange ideas freely without fear of being discriminated against by other people. Therefore, the family is more influential than peers, media, church and school in shaping the political views of its members.
20th Century Socialism Research Paper
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).
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.
Socialism. “Socialism in America.” U.S. History, n.d. Web. https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1669.html
Socialist Market Economic System of China Essay
Socialism with Chinese features differs from the socialism that emerged on the basis of developed Capitalism that was assumed by Marx and Engels. The two focused on socialism that evolved from the Soviet Model and from the ‘triumphal stage” socialism in past China.
The habit of socialism with Chinese Characteristic is focused in its habit in historical beginning, peculiar development system, and peculiar dual relationship. Features or the characteristic of socialism was an aspect that was embraced by Deng Xiaoping.
It is under the umbrella of setting up socialism with Chinese Characteristic that socialism enhances incredible dynamism and vitality in China. In this respect, this paper shall therefore succinctly discuss the economic system of socialist market economy in China, its features, and the extent of its capitalism.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristic
According to the past history, socialism with Chinese Characteristic was an aspect that developed in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. Maxist Classical authors assert that, the beginning of development of socialist society is the development of Capitalism.
Having known this, China is still in progress on the socialist road on the platform of a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. In this respect, the perspective that China undertakes is predominantly different from what Maxism believes in. It is the tremendous difference between Maxism and China as a country that results to Socialism acquiring typical features of the underdeveloped countries (Dillon 63).
At the outset, the basis on which Chinese Socialism was sprout is distinct from the matrix which gestates socialism as passed on by its founders. The forerunner of Chinese Socialism is a diffident semi-colonial and semi-feudal society as a substitute of developed capitalistic society (Beck and Levine 428).
Secondly, socialism formulated on the basis of a backward economy culture in the Chinese Society has to essentially go through a transition period from the incompetent to the competent. A competent socialism in this case may be thought to uphold a better and superior position than capitalism itself; in essence, it is a socialism that is assumed by Marx.
In the development stage of the society, and in realizing a complete transition, it has to undergo a process from the incompetent to competent transition. This is an experience that takes a fairly long transition period, or in other words this is the primary stage (Chen 466).
The third feature is that Socialism that emerges from a backward economy and culture will encounter a lot of difficulties and problems. In its development stage at the production point, Socialism has held up developed capitalistic countries inadequately.
Due to this fact and also under the socialist background, China has an obligation to fulfill the responsibilities of industrialization, commercialization, socialization, and modernization, which other countries have been able to fulfill through capitalism and enhanced the well developed production power that socialism should have (Johnson et al. 141).
Therefore, we can find out that socialism that evolves on the basis of backward economy and culture is very abnormal. It varies from socialism that is referred to by Marx and Engels at a reserve of a period of sound developed capitalism.
The two persons emerge from different backgrounds, and they represent differences of quality or developmental level. They also present differences of quality between them. As an outcome of this, Chinese Socialism and socialism that is represented by the two are definitely not of the same level.
In an economic pattern perspective, socialism with Chinese Characteristic is a kind of socialism that combines public ownership and distinct economy. In a socialist development history, the ideology developed by setting up public ownership against the product economy has been in existence for a long period of time.
However, the concept has resolved that sheer planned economy will hold back the development of the production power. Since establishing public ownership against the product economy may hold back the development of the production capability, after setting up the socialistic public ownership, it becomes uncertain the kind of economic system that ought to be built to speed up the development of the production capability (Wu and Zhao 311).
To efficiently deal with the historical question on socialism when in the process of practicing of the transformation of China, the Chinese society emphasized on improvement of the road and distinguished market system. Undeniably, the most profound features of socialist market economy in China rest on its inclination on the dominance of public ownership and pre-eminence of the market economy.
The practice, since its improvement has assured that merging public ownership and market economy and taking the socialist as a necessary alternative for discharge and development of productivity within China (Alesina 30)..
Moreover, it also becomes an unavoidable choice that is meant to bring to realizing a gradual social equality to the Chinese society. However, the merging of the two aspects (public ownership and market economy) does not merely mean that there are no disagreements, not contradictions that coexist between the two.
Most of the problems that are observed in the contemporary China are as the result of the conflicts between them. There is therefore a need to deal with the conflicts in a correct and proper manner. Since these aspects cannot be eliminated from either the social economy or the market economy, the chief principle that ought to be carried out in resolving the issues is to regulate those conflicts.
The regulation that ought to be carried out should be initiated using two aspects: one of the aspects is that, China should harbor all the ways and means to adjust public ownership and enable it to be in alignment with the principle requirements of the market economy (Wu and Zhao 315).
The other aspect is that China should be able to control the market economy and make it conform to the quintessence of public ownership. In other words, the two aspects should be compatible to each other, because if there are contradictions between the two, resolving the dispute should be to enhance equilibrium between the two. On the contrary, the two aspects should be left to effectively adapt, conform, and cooperate on a mutual basis (Walder 965).
In a nut shell, the strong bond between socialism and capitalism is a pivotal aspect in the external relationship that socialist nations or societies face in development and construction.
The only problem that is hard to avoid in the social construction is the handling and dealing with the capitalistic relationship. Considering that China has already paved an avenue for both socialism and capitalism, this has therefore become one of the distinct features of Socialism with Chinese characteristic (Alesina 35).
The Extent to which China operates Capitalist System
China is considered to operate on a socialist market economy system. In this regard, not many analysts or studies have explicitly focused on the capitalism aspect of China. The experienced dynamic and massive socio-economic changes characteristic in China have little been linked to any capitalist transition in this country.
Explaining how much China is turning out to be a capitalist economy is based on how much the term capitalism is understood in this particular country. Capitalist economies are considered misnomer for the Chinese economy and political portfolio. This is because capitalist economies put much effort on the purposes of capital, over and above the ideology of institutions (Gamer 117).
Capitalist economic system is considered to be a social system that by greater extent allows the minority to be the owners of the means of production. The disadvantage of this process is that the majority of the population may be left to suffer exploitative conditions.
Fundamental aspects of the capitalist system is that market forces in the system are omnipotence and the private owned enterprises are important in addressing socio-economic problems in the economy. Private owners of the enterprises own the means of production in China as well (Gamer 129). In this regard, China is slowly turning to be a capitalist economy resulting from production processes.
Conceptions of Change
Transformation of China towards being a capitalist society has been partial and is consequently lacking depth in terms of analysis. However, dynamic transformations in the Chinese economy have been triggered by the aspect of capitalism.
The current economic system in China is perceived as a stepping stone towards achievement of capitalism. Capitalism should be purely analytical in China to consider the system fully operational in the country (Dillon 242).
Both the positive and negative attributes of the capitalistic system need to be put into consideration in the analysis of the system. This system though is not fully integrated into the operation ability of China’s economy, but it is slowly gaining momentum.
Asian countries have consistently adopted capitalism into their economies and China is falling into the same path. This follows the fact that China’s neighbors are as well its business partners, and the need to operate uniform economies is essential to realize the full benefits of the trade relations. Considerably, Bailey argues that China is a big economy in the region and so are the variations between China and the rest of the region (601).
High growth and development experienced in China is constantly influencing integration of China into the world’s capitalist system. In this regard, globalization is integrating China into the global production networks.
The need to be competitive enough in the entire world market has prompted China to react towards capitalism because leading world producers operate a capitalist form of economy. By greater length of operation, China is adopting capitalism into its system and is consequently converting from social market system (Dillon 257).
General advancement in China has been short of complete transition into capitalism. However, China’s progress into being a capitalist economy is consistent, but at the same time faces considerable challenges. Effects of uncertainty in the legislation and institutional factors have been felt in the domestic political economy of the country.
This forces the private sector to act slowly on the realization and effectuation of the capitalist system in the economy of China. Even with this, the essence of capitalism in the country cannot be ignored because it is consistently taking root in the general operations of the country (Gamer, 295).
The legislative uncertainty in the economy has been attributed to the slow pick of capitalism in China, and the concept of the economy to continue evolving is subject to the political economy of the country.
Production based on capitalist activities is prevalent internationally, Chinese operations included. Capitalism is well stretched in this region, being evident from New York to Singapore.
Large amounts of capital and heavy business operations that are accompanied by building of competitive institutions are the key drivers towards realization of a capitalist economy (Dillon 261). China is not left behind in this process and that is the reason why it is in a considerable pace taking a transition from socialism to capitalism over time.
Basing this argument on historical events can further show that at some point, capitalist operations, and consequently as a means of an economic system originated in China. At a time regarded as the Republican era, production by the means of capitalist operations was evident in the country, especially in the Eastern Seaboard.
Amass Capital in China
Economic growth and development in China is not traced to follow any predetermined economic strategy at the height of its intense and broad changes. Induced reforms have been significant of the economic changes in China, giving it the upward movement realized in the series of changes characteristic of its economic system.
Transition from social market system to capitalism has gradually been realized over time based on amass capital China. Fundamental reforms in the country were amid rising prices of agricultural products. To account for this challenge, the country introduced household responsibility system that in that period replaced the concept of high-cost agricultural products.
Amass capital in China was as a result driven by the households. Farmers at that time sharply increased their saving propensity, thereby acting as catalysts to drive amass capital in the country. The households consequently invested in private enterprises, which were small-scale in nature.
Private production constitutes a greater percentage of attaining capitalist economies. In this regard, the contribution of such enterprises in the Chinese economy cannot be ignored. This fact therefore shows that as much as China is considered to operate a socialist economy, the extent to which capitalist activities in the country are prevalent is worth noting.
Considering that increase in the partiality to save resulted in increased savings, it is also important to consider that these deposits were taken into government-owned financial institutions, which consequently meant that the investment decisions were still at the authority of village governments and township governance.
This may have consequently delayed the process of actualizing capitalism in China, but in real-time analysis, capitalist activities have seemingly taken over the socialism that saw the control of households’ deposits (Xie and Lei 34).
Capitalist system can be distinguished from the social system based on the series of events and activities that capitalist system involves. In a capitalist system, capital must be in a position to grow and expand in a consistent and a continuous investment process.
Re-investment and further extraction of capital follows this system to exploit the full benefits that come with it. Dynamism of the capitalism depends on the need to observe and consequently extract wealth from the activities of the society in form of capital.
For China, a transition better suits the economic system in the country because aspects of both capitalist and socialist systems are evident. Their magnitude however differs based on differences in the factors that influence each particular system.
Alesina, Rodrik. “Distribution, Political Conflict, and Economic Growth.” Political Economy, Growth and Business Cycles. Eds. Cukierman, A., Hercowitz, Z., and Leiderman, L. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992: 23-50. Print.
Bailey, Michael. “Accounting in Transition in the Transitional Economy.” The European Accounting Review 4.4 (1995): 595-623. Print.
Beck, Thurston, and Ross Levine. “Stock Markets, Banks, and Growth: Panel Evidence.” Journal of Banking and Finance 28 (2004): 423-442. Print.
Chen, Zhiwu. “Capital Markets and Legal Development: The China Case. China.” Economic Review 14 (2003): 451-472. Print.
Dillon, Mike. Contemporary China: An Introduction. California: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Gamer, Robert. Understanding Contemporary China. Michigan: Lynne Rienner, 2008. Print.
Johnson, Simon, Peter Boone, Alasdair Breach, and Eric Friedman. “Corporate
Governance in the Asian Financial Crisis 1997-98.” Journal of Financial Economics 58 (2000): 141. Print.
Walder, Andrew. “China’s Transitional Economy: Interpreting its Significance.” The China Quarterly, 144 (Dec, 1995): 963-979, Print.
Wu, Jinglian and Renwei Zhao. “The Dual Pricing System in China’s Industry.” Journal of Comparative Economics 11 (1987): 309-318. Print.
Xie, Ping and Lu Lei. The Economics of Corruption in China’s Financial Institutions: Behavior and Mechanism Design. Beijing: People’s Bank of China, 2003.
Macroeconomics: Socialism, Totalitarism and US Economics Report
In any economic system, capitalists and managers organize natural resources, manual labor and know- how to create and bestow goods and services. The manner in which these distinct elements are brought together and used is a sign of the state’s political principles and culture. The U.S. system of government is known as federal and is composed of three different subdivisions.
These include the lawmaking subdivision, the judiciary, and the executive. The U.S. has a capitalist economy whereby small groups of persons manage large sums of money and make significant economic impacts.
The capitalistic economy of the U.S. has two approaches which include the standard and the nation-building approach. The standard approach is temporary and non-strategic.
It views market improvement as an economic issue and promotes narrowly definite and self-sufficient leadership. The state building approach is characterized by pragmatic sovereignty, sufficient governing bodies, cultural match and deliberate leadership (Flynn & McConnell 214).
Socialism is a type of government in which the community is subject to property and wealth allocation. This management may be carried out via famous persons or via the state.
As an economic scheme, this type of government is exemplified by collective possession of production means and is thus accredited to communism largely because of the allocation of wealth managed as intact and un-independently.
Socialist economics are the financially viable theories and activities of theoretical and accessible socialist economic structures. Socialist economy relies on public possession or sovereign cooperative possession of production techniques.
In this economy, production is done to create use-value that is coordinated via economic scheduling. Totalitarianism is a form of government whereby personal freedom is restricted and all aspects of a person’s life are subordinated to the governments rule.
It is a social philosophy that is understood as total control over communal activities. It is trusted that this form of government is an answer to economic problems in a nation.
Totalitarian governments receive devastating support for their opinions and objectives when it comes to economic development. This paper will compare and contrast the approach to economics of the U.S. system of government to socialist and totalitarian forms of government.
Compare and contrast the approach to economics of the U.S. system of government to Socialism
Capitalism, which is the economic system in the U.S, and Socialism are both economic schemes. In capitalism, the economy is privatized while in socialism, there is a central government that directs the economy. While the socialist form of government vests more authority into the political organization, the capitalist economies in the U.S. contemplate more power under the rich businesspersons whose goal is profit maximization.
Socialist economies are characterized by greater management by government. This leads to political goals of equal dissemination of resources in the society. In capitalism, there is equal economic prospects with minimal or no government intrusion while in Socialism, there is equal economic prospects with government intrusion.
In capitalism, cartels can easily demolish an economy by manipulating every production means where as in socialism, schemes that cannot stand on their own such as welfare act as fiscal black holes. Both capitalism and socialism are fiscal ideologies though the aim of capitalism is profit and that of socialism is wellbeing.
The United States economy may be depicted as a mixed economy whereby the government works together with private enterprises to improve the economy. The United States, just like any other urbanized nation, has to endorse socialist laws via courier democracy to make it possible for smaller companies to expand and generate competition.
In socialist economy, goods and services are generated directly for consumption. This is in contrast to the capitalist economy in the United States where goods and services are created for profit. Goods are produced due to their value thus ignoring the need for market-stimulated wants.
Production in this type of economy is thus planned or harmonized and does not face problems arising from the business cycle. This is inherent in the United States capitalist economy.
Nearly all socialist economies apply land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship to their economic planning and not to the distribution of products produced for use as in the capitalist economy. The possession of production means in a socialist economy can be public, cooperative or communal. Economic planning in socialist economy takes a distinct form compared to economic planning in capitalism.
In socialism, planning is understood as the creation of use-value in a direct manner while in capitalism, planning is taken to mean the arrangement of capital buildup to stabilize or augment the effectiveness of this process. Socialist economies ignore the free market and its price indicator.
Its lack of enticements leads to a slow GDP growth. This is different from capitalism which has a high growth due to the presence of price indicators. It is thus easy to compute rationally how to distribute resources (Mai 145).
Compare and contrast the approach to economics of the U.S. system of government to Totalitarianism
Capitalism and Totalitarianism are both economic schemes. In capitalism, there is equal economic prospects with minimal or no government intrusion while in totalitarian economy, everything is controlled by the society.
In capitalism, cartels can easily demolish an economy by manipulating every production means where as a totalitarian economy concentrates more on distributing rather than generating wealth.
In capitalism, the economy is privatized while in totalitarianism, there is an oppressive authority which does not provide its citizens any rights or liberty (Mai 149).
The capitalist economy in the United States is a market economy whereby prices arising due to competition establish what goods are produced together with their quantities. Prices in this economy also result in fair relations amongst the several sections of production to overcome disputes.
A capitalist economy is managed by the market laws and the sovereignty of these laws comprises the influential sign of the capitalism. Totalitarian economy, however, precisely gets rid of the sovereignty of economic laws. It signifies not a market but an economy of the final consumer.
In this economy, a state planning charge determines the goods produced and how they are produced. Though price charges and wages subsist in this economy, they no longer play a role in determining the production process. They only become distribution means establishing the share that a person gets.
In this economy, both the motivating competition fire and the obsessive striving for proceeds offering the main incentive of capitalism vanish. The central notion in the totalitarian economic system is the achievement of a certain goal. This goal is the rationale why a totalitarian regime exists and all the resources are aimed at the accomplishment of the goal (Mai 187).
Flynn, Sean and Campbell McConnell. Macroeconomics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
Mai, Ludwig. Approach to economics. Littlefield: University of Virginia Publishers, 2010. Print.