Marxism And Socialism Essay

Although the welfare state had been evolving before the Beveridge committee report, but it was the Beveridge committee report that gave birth to the welfare state legislations after the second world war; these legislations includes The Education Act (1944), The Family Allowance Act (1945), The National Health Service Act (1946), The National Assistance Act 1948, The Children's Act 1948, and The Housing Act (1949). The

This essay will examine how the development of the Welfare State and the NHS changed the lives of the people of Britain since its introduction in 1948. To enable me to do so, I will analyse and evaluate the key relevant aspects that happened during that period.

The early 20th century socialist revolutionary theorists Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg and Leon Trotsky believed that the withering away of the state and the removal of the capitalist mode of production was a necessary outcome if the individual was to ever realize their true nature as being free, equal and self-determining. This, however, could only be achieved through the development of the proletariat’s class consciousness and their defeat over the bourgeoisie. It is in this manner where both socialist revolutionary theory and practice share a dialectical relationship. However untied in their revolutionary visions of this international process, these theorists differ in what the role and functions of the revolutionary party should be in the historical development of the new socialist state.

Britain’s provision of welfare underwent a massive overhaul in the middle of the second World War .William Beveridge played a key role in these changes by writing a report which revised the social security system. It was determined by Beveridge that certain policies were required to combat the evils of society. They were referred to as “The Five Giants”.

on the nerve near the ear) was greater on the side of the head that the cell phone was held.[13]

As mentions before socialism is the doctrine that espouses public ownership or control of a major means of production. It aims to achieve an equitable and efficient distribution of social goods and greater economic planning then exist under capitalism. Although the central concerns of socialism appears to be economic its ramifications extend to the moral, social and political realms, in fact together with nationalism, it is the leading ideological and political movement of the 20th century.

Karl Marx, in the Capital, developed his critique of capitalism by analyzing its characteristics and its development throughout history. The critique contains Marx’s most developed economic analysis and philosophical insight. Although it was written in 1850s, its values still serve an important purpose in the globalized world and maintains extremely relevant in the twenty-first century.

     The Communist Manifesto was written by two world renowned philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This book was produced in an era of great suffering and anguish of all workers in a socially distressed system. In a time when revolutions were spreading through Europe like wildfire, Marx organized his thoughts and views to produce the critical pamphlet “The Communist Manifesto”. Marx’s scrutiny illustrates his belief that unless change is to occur the constant outcome will repeatedly remain uniform. This is a novel that displays the differentiation between the Bourgeois and the Proletariat. Class relationships are defined by an era's means of production. Marx’s

Concepts from Marx and Marxist thoughts had entered the political discourse, people now began to entertain the thought that there might be another way. This is most evident in the millennial generation and their view of communism/socialism. Far removed from the ‘Cold War’ era and the propaganda used to against communism, millennials are educated in war without a frame of reference. Today, the world is different. Ironically, Fox News, a conservative news network published a report saying that “46% of young American’s view Socialism more favorably than Capitalism” (O’Reilly,

This essay will discuss the key points of the ‘Beveridge report’ (1942), and evaluate the significance of the report on the welfare state. In November 1942, William Beveridge presented a report called, ‘Social Insurance and Allied Services’ to parliament. This was a summary of principles to improve upon the existing welfare benefits system, to benefit working people and the population. The document proposed a new system to be operated by one governing agency, called Social Security. This would be put in place by the state after World War 2 had ended. Overall Beveridge created the most revolutionary document in our history. Beveridge has played a significant role in evolving the Welfare State over the decades. (Robinson, 2003).

Struggles during the 19th century between social classes over differences in private enterprise and property ownership, became a driving force for changes and reform in Modern Industrial society. Historically, conflict outcomes generally favored the Bourgeoisie, or middle class, over the Proletariats, the working class, during this time in Western Civilization. However, an advancing group of socialists, began referring to themselves as communists, and “advocated the abolition of private property in favor of communal, collective ownership”, promoting the Marxist revolt led by the Proletariats to eliminate private ownership and social classes altogether. (Hunt et. al., 2012, 707). The Communist Manifesto, published in the name of the Communist League, reflected these and other political ideals, relationships between social classes, and guidelines for the revolution with a fundamental set of principles.

In this regard, a good number of these socialist alternatives have in one way or another misrepresented the original meaning of socialism. Incidentally, some of these alternatives exercise double standards by exercising socialism on one hand and strict communism or even capitalism on the other. Likewise, other similar systems have partially sidetracked from socialism by implementing and promoting individualistic socialism which endorses augmentation of social classes and which in reality is indifferent from capitalism. On the other hand, some of these alternatives are predominantly based on self-centered governance which represses freedom and unalienation among its citizens. Lastly, the underlying principle of the unalienated man escapes virtually all these socialist replacements as they fail to acknowledge the value of freedom and non-competitive production which allows man to bring the whole process of societal growth and individual fulfillment under his

The following paragraph will focus on Marx and the society, once that state has been dissolved, with this again, providing evidence, which I believe, demonstrates Marxism to most certainly not be anti-democratic in theoretical terms. The abolition of the state was fundamentally important to Marxist philosophy with ‘no picture of Marx and Engels political ideas being complete that did not treat the political features of the future classless society.’ Marx as he ‘clearly never imagined human beings could live together like herds of animals without any conscious organization,’ sought to formulate a ‘public power,’ which performed ‘legitimate functions,’ as oppose to a ‘state,’ which was ‘merely a repressive organ of governmental power.’ Marx proposed a ‘public power,’ which differed from a state as it did not posses two crucial characteristics. Firstly, it would not be run and administered by professionals, and secondly and most importantly, it would possess no instruments of coercion. (Femia,1987) This I believe, to be fundamentally important to the essay title. This clearly demonstrates how different Marx’s original philosophy was from practical

The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels 1888) predicted that the proletariat class would seize state power through democratic means, or revolution, then abolish capitalism through collective ownership of resources and industry, which would found a socialist society finally leading to communism. This essay discusses the strengths and limitations of social democracy in the United Kingdom in achieving Marxist socialism, the answer to the question is more complex than ‘yes or no’. Social democracy differs from Marxist socialism because the abolition of private property and classlessness are not seen as the methods to achieving socialism. Instead of altering the fundamental political and economic base of society, to achieve an outcome of greater equality, social democracy addresses the social and economic inequality resulting from this base. In the UK social democracy has increased social equality though increased access to education, healthcare, and a welfare state. This essay aims to prove that the parliamentary system enabling social change towards equality, can also halt or reverse those advances. Furthermore, class differentiation is not necessarily a hindrance in achieving socialism, but an opposing agenda between classes can destabilise social democracy. The author believes that the alliance of socialist values exclusively to the political left is an impediment to establishing and maintaining a socialist society. A mixed economy holds greater potential for sustained

All economic theories share common roots, they attempt to address the basic question of how an economy can, and should, be maintained. One of the most influential economic philosophies is Marxism. The fact that economic theories can share common roots is especially evident in Marxism; It even shares a basic premise of laissez-faire with capitalism, a philosophy it directly contradicts (Sowell 12). In studying Marxism, two basic necessities must be addressed; the nature of Marxism and its basis, and the political and economic implications of Marxism.