Communitarianism: Most Logical Form Of Economy

Often times in liberal societies the wealthy take all of the money, leaving the middle class and the poor with nothing. The text chosen for source one emphasizes the fact that the wealthy and corporate elite need to take care of the poor, that it is their responsibility to ensure the common good is being met. It explains how higher classes have a collective obligation to help those who are in need. This idea corresponds with having a collective responsibility; a strong principle of collectivism. The ideas given in the text are collectivist ideas, describing how it is a responsibility of the rich to work for the common good, not just their own good. This mimics another principle of collectivism: collective interest. The author of the source does not explain the ridding of the social classes, but they outline the ideas of the upper class making sure that classes lower than them are being taken care of. The source does not describe government involvement, which is why the source mirrors the ideas of Robert Owen and Utopian Socialism. Owen believed that it was the factory owners job to take sure that their workers were treated with proper care and consideration. This puts an emphasis on a great responsibility of the rich working towards the collective good, just as the source described above. In contrast, many capitalists would likely disagree with the notion, because it puts restraints on the economic freedoms they hold so dearly. Capitalists believe in pursuing your self

Communitarianism is defined as “a philosophy that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community”. So basically communitarianism is the natural, common sense philosophy towards personal, social and political life. Many people feel and believe in what this book expresses in words. Etzioni outlines a rock solid and timely argument for strengthening our community and curbing rampant individualism. He stresses that in our world today nothing is for certain, that there are many shades of grey. Individual rights cannot rule supreme and the needs of the community cannot always overrule the needs of the individual. There has to be a middle ground and I believe this book speaks to that middle ground.

There are many controversial pros and cons about communitarianism. Communitarianism promotes protection of others and responsibility. The community is an important aspect for communications therefore the protection, public safety and responsibilities of there are important parts of

According to Mine (2015) "communitarianism is about the balancing of individual rights with social responsibilities and obligations" (p. 3). Therefore, communitarianism emphasizes the common good over individualistic goals. Land et al. (2014) also assert that "communitarian ethics also assumes universal values or protonorms agreed upon by humanity regardless of cultural specificities. It neither espouses nor eschews tribal or communal values per se, but holds them accountable to universal values that serve to sustain human solidarity"

Sandel’s book, What Money Can’t Buy, rests on the claim that market thinking can replace moral thinking by crowding out certain values that are necessary for a community to be an effective, moral democracy. He places a particular role for diversity in relation to civic engagement and plans to show its importance. This essay will define the following terms in regards Sandel in his book: market thinking, moral democracy, diversity (in relation to the content), civic engagement. Then this essay will outline Sandel’s understanding of civic engagement and its relationship between moral democracy. Finally, Sandel’s argument will be explored and his notion of communitarianism explained to how it undermines a robust notion of diversity. Sandel undermine

All work would be on a voluntary basis,” (WSM). This is the lynchpin of Socialism--as it is defined by a reputable world leader in the policy. The lack of evidence to support that, in a society founded on voluntary work with no correlation between individual work and individual yield, all individuals would work is a severe logic crack in the foundation of a Socialist society. It has been both historically (i.e. Soviet Russia) and is being presently (i.e. abuse of the United States welfare system that promotes unemployment and the claiming of Social Security over part time employment supplemented with government funds to achieve a more livable income) observed that oppressed people do not buy into communal work and benefits, and making that work voluntary would only worsen the issue. By removing the incentive to do work and casting off the moral codes defined by religion (as both Engels and Marx state the futility of allowing religion to linger in Socialist and Communist societies), there is little to no evidence to support that people will work. Furthermore, a different definition of Socialism that excludes this notion of voluntary work would be subjected to the same criticisms and faults that Communism is victimized by.

In capitalism work is insecure. In capitalism it makes the common worker expendable. There is no loyalty to the works. cost of things increase workers is let go or the workers are replaced by cheaper machines. Marx thought

There is more freedom in democracy than any other form of government, as a result, personal liberty is mostly available in democratic countries. It has infused a sense of responsibility and commitment in citizens. Whereas the abolishment of classes was criticized as the cause for laziness. One major factor that caused communism to fail was, its inability to create an efficient performance for its economic system. Communism ended the social class system and provided similar lives for everyone. This caused no commitment or desire for hard work. There was a lack of innovation, because a doctor would get paid the same as a taxi driver. So why would anyone study for 11 years of college, if they will get paid the same as someone who studied for 4 years only or not at all? Employees had very little desire to work hard as they would still be paid the same amount of money regardless. Everyone was guaranteed a job no matter what degree they had or how hard they worked. There weren’t any rewards for the person that contributed the most, so this causes the lack of motivation.

Marx, having grown up during the time of industrial revolution, was no stranger to the poor, unhealthy working class. His interest in history and radical social change led him to the age-old struggle between the peasants, and the suppressing monarchs and nobles.[3] This is clearly apparent in his Communist Manifesto, where Marx begins his document with a historical explanation for the rise of the bourgeoisie and its struggle with the working class. Marx explains that the serfs and peasants of the Middle Ages have become the proletariat of his time. Capitalism has triumphed, and the government has taken a hands-off approach to the free market. To keep workers from being lazy in this free market, there are no state sponsored charities, or welfare programs. Wages run equal to the cost of bread to feed the family. Women are involved in industry. Children are at best considered an economic asset, another worker. However, more often then not they are just another mouth to feed.

Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s greater good. “How dared you think that your mind held greater wisdom then the minds of your brothers? And if the councils had decreed that you should be a street sweeper, how dare you

Political ideologies play a defining role in determining the daily actions, political decisions, and acceptable standards of most modern societies. However, as dominant systems are publicized, others seem to dissipate into a state of irrelevance. Communitarianism follows such a pattern, but despite its lesser significance, has gradually increased in importance as disgruntled constituents search for more satisfactory representation. Gaining an understanding of this governmental philosophy requires a thorough analyzation of Communitarianism, the current immigration debate, aspects of Libertarianism, and the disagreements Communitarians have with Libertarians.

Under communism, the economy is controlled by the state. A single authoritarian party holds the power over the government. Communism is based on the belief of common ownership over the production of resources and the elimination of social classes (!). In that social order, all goods are shared among the people. This belief is entirely idealistic with no working or capitalist classes. Everyone will give their part based on their ability and take what they need. The state eliminates private property and capital to create this idealistic higher society (!). This form of government might work for smaller family units or tribes. Where the members know and trust each other intimately. But when the leader of a nation imposes it on the people it falls apart. Human nature would get in

The essential nature of capitalism is social harmony through the pursuit of self-interest. Under capitalism, the individual's pursuit of his own economic self-interest simultaneously benefits the economic self-interests of all others. In allowing each individual to act unhampered by government regulations, capitalism causes wealth to be created in the most efficient manner possible which ultimately raises the standard of living, increases the economic opportunities, and makes available an ever growing supply of products for everyone. The free-market operates in such a way so that as one man creates more wealth for himself, he simultaneously creates more wealth and opportunities for everyone else,

Throughout history the world has experienced several types of socio-economies, from Mussolini’s fascism to Mao’s communism. All of those economies have its weaknesses and strengths and most have countries that can validate its effectiveness. Yet, only one economy has risen above the rest. But before we could decide which economy is truly better for society, there has to be criteria on which to judge the economy’s effectiveness. First, what is a society? In essence, it is a network of bonds we as human beings forge under the assumption, that working together we can all be happier than if we were only looking out for ourselves. With society, everyone is able to concentrate on what they do best, reap the benefits from the skills of others, and avoid the conflict that would arise otherwise. Thus, it follows that the ultimate goal of society is to ensure the happiness of everyone. And currently, only one economy has staved off the test of time and reached that goal. Capitalism, with its merit system, flexible cost adjustments, and having no other economic contenders is able to achieve a better society than any other socio-economic system can.

Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it 's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what 's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don 't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.