Capitalism Is Not Only Brings Out The Worst

In the 1960s, Johan Galtung posited the construct of violence as a phenomenon generated by the existence of social barriers that deny needs satisfaction in certain sectors of society. Galtung's conceptual framework illustrates the relationship between the structure of society and the inequalities experienced by its citizens. Gilman's seminal definition of structural violence reads, “physical and psychological harm that results from exploitive and unjust social, political, and economic systems” (1983, p. 8).

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

As Americans, living in a egotistical and self centered society, we often think that we are the best, the top 1 percent in every aspect. However, When compared to other countries of the world, America is ranked 14th in education, 44th in health care efficiency, and 101th in peace. But it ranks first in incarceration, 2nd in ignorance, and 3rd in global competitiveness. One can see how the rankings that America is top in are those that promote violence in one way or another. In the book Violence and Culture: A Cross-Cultural and Interdisciplinary Approach by Jack David Eller, the author discusses violence in American society in one of his chapters. In this chapter, he mentions some social characteristics that represents and plays a role in

History has a tendency to repeat itself.  One of humanity’s most popular ways of getting its point across is through violence.  When words are no longer enough to argue a point, human casualties not only directly solve the problem, but symbolically send a message to all those affected as well.  Just as the American colonies fought against the British for Freedom when their voice was no longer heard, and just as the Islamic extremists used terrorism to send an evil message to America, both V and Chancellor Sutler used violence to gain a voice in a world of chaos.

One of the strongest arguments against capitalism is the quote “It was a monster devouring with a thousand mouths, trampling with a thousand hoofs; it was the Great Butcher – it was the spirit of Capitalism made flesh.”(334), the description of monster depicts capitalism as barbaric instead of those under the influence of capitalism being barbaric. This quote lends itself to the idea that people must fight for what they

The main goal of capitalism is to create profit. Capitalism values private ownership of property and discourages government intervention in the economy. Cultural misconceptions have suggested that capitalism is bad because it has lead to a large separation of wealth from the wealthiest individuals in a nation. The separation of wealth is not a misconception but I believe that blaming capitalism and wealthy individuals for societies economic woes are. I also do not believe that socialism is a bad thing either. I believe that both capitalism and socialism have a place amongst our society however I would lean towards capitalism because of an emphasis on utilizing resources to create more consumer goods where as socialism emphasizes evenly distributing resources.

It is through these acts of violence that societal change is achieved and order restored.

There are two sides to many things, one could argue that there are two sides to everything. Violence is not excluded from this argument. The two possible sides, or viewpoints, that are a result of violence can easily be seen as extremes of either side. One side could argue that violence is something that is necessary and the other argue that violence is only a tool for destruction. People who insist that violence is necessary in order to move forward view it as a way to sway the outcome to their benefit. For those who see violence as a cowardly tactic to control people, violence is a useless display of power and dominance. Yet violence has also been a way to defend oneself from people who pose a threat. This can lead people who have good

Finding the Good in Violence Violence has always been a taboo topic, focused around the brutality of man. No one dares to speak of violence in a positive light, because the harm it causes greatly outweighs any other outcomes. Though seemingly miniscule, violence has brought about some constructive changes in today’s society. Violence can be constructive when it comes to deterring potential criminals from committing crimes as well as it has been essential to the reconstruction of government all over the world. More so, violence can be used as a template to learn from and to shape our society so that we can know the dangers of violence and steer ourselves away from similar violent acts that have been committed in the past.

Violence has a straightforward premise. We have a tendency to focus on what Žižek calls subjective violence: demonstrations of strike, murder, dread and war. However, there are two different assortments of target brutality: the “symbolic" violence found in speech , and systemic violence, the "often catastrophic consequences of the functioning of our economic and political systems". Žižek then embarks to break down these types of objective violence, however he winds up concentrating totally on the systemic assortment.

Capitalism has been the subject of ethical criticism since it was first introduced into society. I defend the morality of capitalism because it gives people incentive to work, establishes a web of trust between them, satisfies their material well-being, and generates a wide spectrum of prosperity.

Turpin and Kurtz (1996) define a number of problems with the current theories on violence. First, the traditional disciplinary approaches obscure the problem of violence even as they have also clarified part of it. Interdisciplinary work is the most creative approach to this issue, but it is discouraged in the academy. Second, scholars neglect the micro/macro issue, tending to focus on one particular level of violence. Third, conventional social science methodologies encourage narrow approaches to the study of violence, prompting a focus on one specific form of violence that is often limited in

“Even today we raise our hand against our brother... We have perfected our weapons, our conscience has fallen asleep, and we have sharpened our ideas to justify ourselves as if it were normal we continue to sow destruction, pain, death. Violence and war lead only to death” (Pope Francis). Individuals. Men. Woman. Children. Just as violence can be portrayed in a different manner for each and every individual, violence can have a large variety of effects on an individual. All of our lives we have looked to violence as a last resort, as a solution for problems in the present thinking little of the problems in the future. There is a time for violence that can be shown through any current conflicts in the world, but there is also a time to step back and look to the future. The theme I have chosen to explore is the effects violence has on individuals in society. The texts I have decided to use to further study this theme are Fight Club (A novel written by Chuck Palahnuik), Guilty as Trained (A spoken word piece by J.G), Dulce Et Decorum Est (written by Wilfred Owen ), and text number four (directed by ). The exploration of these texts will assist me in studying my theme of the effects of violence on society.

The legitimist definition defines violence as the illegitimate use of force, and structural violence is defined as violence inflicted by unjust social arrangements. According to Coady, the legitimist definition has a tendency to exclude paradigm cases while structural violence includes surprising ones. Both views “draw upon the idea that violence is inherently wrong” (p. 2). As a consequence, both views let this idea (violence is wrong) determine the definition of violence, thus overmoralizing the

Structural violence can come from individual, social and political bearings. Although structural violence is not derived from anyone