Essay on Marxism Applied to the Modern State

Throughout John Knowles’ A Separate Peace, Gene’s internal struggle is reflected in the war taking place. In the beginning of the story, Finny tells Gene that he was reading the paper and saw that “[the United States] bombed Central Europe...”(25). At this point in the story, it is 1942, which is the midst of World War II. This reflects Gene’s attitude toward Finny. As the war starts to escalate and the United States enters, Gene starts to loathe Finny for reasons that are entirely from Gene’s head. When Finny returns to Devon for the winter session, he has convinced himself, and soon convinces Gene, that “there isn’t any war”(115). Around this time, Gene pushes away his hateful thoughts towards Finny and convinces himself that Finny and him

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.

'Egalatarian' ideas (i.e. socialism and democracy) are merely illusions, far from the truth of reality. Rather, elite theorists put forward the idea that elitism is the by-product of political apathy amongst the majority of the population. This lack of interest in politics is, and always has been an inherent characteristic within the structure of society. Hence, the materialisation of an 'representative' democracy. Under this guise of 'democracy', although the electorate is given choices through which to choose which elite should govern, it cannot however change the basis on which power will always be exercised by an elite.

The elite theory believes that a small group consisting of powerful people holds the most power, and that this power is independent of a state's democratic elections process. Elite theory argues either that democracy is in all unrealistic, or that democracy is not able to be achieved within capitalism. Within the elite theory not everyone is going to have the power when making decisions only the most powerful group. Overall meaning the elite theory can determine the trajectory of the society, and therefore the conditions which the members of that society must exist and function. When considering who’s interest does the elite theory compromise it would be hard to find an answer considering that all these groups work together to protect each other’s

Different textual mediums have the effect of exploring various representations of political personalities and situations and their impact on individuals and society. This is apparent in Aldous Huxley’s satirical novel Brave New World (BNW) (1932) and Richard Attenborough’s film Gandhi (1982) where both composers use their mediums to showcase different perceptions of politics and people for a range of audiences. Huxley’s BNW creates social critique on how the growing trend of consumerism, totalitarianism and science may impinge on the lives of citizens. Gandhi recreates the events of a historical figure to represent the impact of colonisation on society. Both texts present control as well as freedom through commenting on political personalities,

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

Plural-elitism is the pluralistic relationship between multiple elitist groups in the government. Although no group may have power over another, the groups themselves are elitist which defies the pluralistic standpoint. In addition, the elitist groups may not hold the interest of the public above all else. It is seen that the American government is neither an elitist dictatorship, nor a system where power is evenly distributed to the full extent among the people. An example of the plural-elitism relationship in the American government can be seen in the relationship between all the states. Each state has a governing power in the capital which provides order over the entirety of that state. State government is usually run by upper-class white people who do not always look to the peoples’ best interest. These state governments exist in each state which creates a pluralistic sharing of power throughout the United State. Individual state governments and their relationships to one another across the United States exemplify a plural-elitism standpoint.

The Industrial Revolution (1750-1850) had brought about significant changes in agriculture, mining, manufacturing, transportation and technology and subsequently established an era of unprecedented economic growth in capitalist economies. It was within this era that Karl Marx had observed the deprivation and inequality experienced by men of the proletariat, the working class, who had laboured excessively for hours under inhumane conditions to earn a minimum wage while the bourgeoisie, the capitalist class, reaped the benefits. For Marx it was this fundamental inequality within the social and economic hierarchy that had enabled capitalist societies to function. While Marx’s theories, in many instances have been falsified and predictions

I am more of a pluralist, but understand the need for some of the power elite system. The people should ultimately decide what the country should more go towards, they should be the force that evolves the country. And forming special interests groups are great, because a group has more power than a signal individual. I believe that the elitists are more of a balancing force, or restoring force. Which allows the people to guide the country, but not to far into one direction too fast. This is because people’s perception and ideas might be skewed to exactly what the facts of the situation are. So the elitists are there to be knowledgeable enough to make decisions that will not let the people go in a direction, where they really don’t want to go.

The ideology of Marxism, established by German philosopher Karl Marx, is a collectively known set of assumptions of a political ideology, which focuses especially on analysis of materialist interpretation of historical development, or on class struggle within the society. The primarily approach of Marxism, nonetheless, was the critique of capitalism. The strength of his inquiry lies in belief of inevitable shift from capitalism and he aims to advocate the new form of ideology and economy, the socialism. The title of this essay is provocative as in today´s world, there exist many proponents who claim, the core of Marx conception of ideology is still relevant in the 21st globalised world. However, Marxism is relevant to the extent to which

Politics is an integral part of our society, and in order for the citizens of any society, or a county to protect their rights and interest, electing the right people, and right theories are necessary. When it comes to government, Elitism and Pluralism are two systems which can be used as a structure of how the powers will be distributed. While the theory of Elitism prefers the distribution of power to be based on wealth, ancestry and intellect; Pluralism theory is much more diverse in the distribution of power, as it ensures equality for everyone, regardless of any differences. Pluralism serves as the model of modern western democracy. In the case of Baltimore, the pluralist theory is much more efficient due to its views on authority, rights

This crucial opening to The Communist Manifesto holds the key to understanding Karl Marx's conception of history. Marx outlines history as a two dimensional, "linear" chain of events. A constant progression of class divisions being created and overthrown, one after the other, until the result is the utopian endpoint, otherwise known as communism.

     Marx describes the problem in great detail in the first chapter. He feels there is a problem between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians. The bourgeoisie were the oppressed class before the French Revolution and he argues that they are now the oppressors. The proletarians are the new working class, which works in the large factory and industries. He says that through mass industry they have sacrificed everything from the old way of religion, employment, to a man’s self worth and replaced it with monetary value. He is mad that the people of ole that use to be upper class such as skills man, trades people, & shopkeepers, are now slipping into the proletarians or working class. He

According to Marxism, there is a struggle or conflict between individual rights and social rights. In many regards, Marxism places more emphasis on societal rights than it does on individual rights. In fact, some critics even state that Marxism ignores the rights of the individual altogether. As can be observed when Marxism is implemented under the umbrella of communism. However, Marxism takes into account the inequality and unfairness that exists in society. The inevitable truth is that contrasting groups in society will always conflict with one another and will be unable to agree on the way in which resources should be distributed. Furthermore, there is also a difference between genders, specifically in terms of the equity of how the roles

Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto states, “The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy” (1888:32). Marx predicted that once proletariats had seized power, the state would abolish capitalism through collective ownership, taking economic control away from the free market and subsequently liberating society from alienation and oppression. This would give rise to a socialist society of equality, ultimately leading to communism. This essay discusses the strengths and limitations of democratic socialism in achieving Marxist socialism. In the UK democratic socialism has bought about