Politics, Business and Bureaucracy – a Fatal Triangle

In the conceptualization of the predominant 19th century political thought process, none- if any- were more influential than John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx. Both were philosophers, sociologists, economists and political thinkers, but each held unique views towards the ideal government, to freedom, and to the impact of the industrial revolution. Each discussed some of the ramifications of the industrial revolution, and the ways in which the government can be re-aligned for greater social prosperity. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) advocated for Liberalism, a system in which liberty and equality would remain at the forefront of all political proposals, and representative interests. Mill celebrated individuality, and the ability to not conform to a higher power. In contrast to Mill, Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a revolutionary socialist who advocated for a complete social revolution throughout society, in an effort to counter the ill perceived effects of capitalism. Marx’s central tenet relied upon the fact that he sought to abolish private property, and monopolies, so as to enable all individuals to acquire an equitable means of living. Marx’s belief was that capitalism forces the economy into constantly being exploited, which in turn leads to recessions. Mill believed that all power should be allocated to the individual; whereas Marx believed that bestowing such power within a socialist regime would allow for the creation of a truly egalitarian society. This paper will analyze how

Marx 's conflict theory has a very distinct ideology, it is stated that it mainly focuses on the causes and effect of class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The Bourgeoisie represented the members of a higher society which held onto the majority of the wealth and means also known as the owners of the way of manufacture and the capitalistic. While the proletariat class was constructed by individuals who belong to the working class or the poor. While they would focus on the economical, societal, and governmental implications of the rise of the capitalist economy in Europe. With the rise of the capitalist economy, it was theorized that the bourgeoisie,

Analyst: This Document basically displays the hatred towards these manufacturers during this time period. This is due to the unhappy people during this time period because of either lack of safety or unstable working conditions. This could also be due to the lack of education which led to people becoming attracted to communism. However, there was a new found hatred toward capitalism due to the overworking of these people. Marx and Engels saw this new idea as evil and harmful because of they are hogging all the money. However with our 21st century eyes, we can see that the systems is fair.

This section argues that the lower classes are under pressure of their owners and that the lower class can be able to achieve their goals to overcome their problems by the formation of unions or riots. It also states the capitalism should be overthrown because communision is the only way for equality among the people. In the third section of the Communist Manifesto, “Socialist and Communist Literature,” the authors discuss the differences of communism and other socioeconomic systems. In their conclusion, “Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties,” briefly discusses countries that were taking action toward becoming a communist country. It ends with the authors calling for the communist revolution.

This onslaught of capitalism directly revolutionized modern industrialism as well as the industrial city. Machines morphed the predominately agricultural nation to a herd of factory and corporate workers. Swarms of people, both native and immigrant, flocked to major cities. “The present century has been marked by a prodigious increase in wealth-producing power. The utilization of steam and electricity, the introduction of improved processes and labor saving machinery, the greater subdivision and grander scale of production, the wonderful facilitation of exchanges, have multiplied enormously the effectiveness of labor.”(George, p.20) The major problem with this newfound industrialism was the way in which the workforce was treated. Capitalism was supposed to provide a way out, a way ascend the financial and social staircase, if you worked hard enough. This however was not the case, if you were a loyal, hardworking employee you simply got to keep your job, and if you were in any way injured or incompetent you were fired.

During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie had definite opinions about the affects of industrialization on society. A greater understanding of their views on history and humanity can be gained by comparing and contrasting two written artifacts: The Communist Manifesto and “Wealth.”

Chambliss (1979) argued that working class would try to increase wages and working conditions over a period of time. And the ruling class passed a law to limit wages paid to labourers. A more reason example is the government legislation enforcing benefit fraud. This is more of a working class crime. However, Functionalists challenge the concept of status frustration and argue that the laws are made for the good of everyone and that for society to work well it is to avoid anomie. This analysis shows that Marxism is useful to a large extent as it can be shown that there is seen to be a level of status frustration.

We currently live in a market society that is completely different from past societies. In market society, the society is a system of self-regulating market as a whole (Polanyi 43). People are needed to act and think in particular ways for the market society to function (Polanyi 68). For instance, people in market society believe that economic relations are more needed than interpersonal relations (Polanyi 44). Polanyi calls the emergence of market society “the great transformation”. My thesis is the change to market society is a fundamental transformation due to market society being characterized by self-regulation, fictitious commodities and an emphasis on individuals, which are considerably different from past societies. A number of the differences that take place under the workplace in the system of market society will also be shown. Furthermore, the thoughts that people have about the world in market society will be explained by pointing out the association between the “spirit of capitalism” and the “protestant work ethic”. Lastly, the reasons why these ideological conditions are essential to the emergence of market society will be provided.

“The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.” This quote by Woodrow Wilson fits perfectly with the topics that will be discussed. The major theme of this paper is bureaucracy. Bureaucracy refers to an administrative system in which agencies staffed largely by non elected officials perform specific tasks in accordance with standard procedures. The work of the bureaucracy involves implementing laws and procedures. Does this sound familiar? That is because most bureaucrats work for the executive branch of the government. The executive branch is the one that enforces the laws. Some of these law enforcing jobs include mail clerk, police officer, fireman, and first responder. These jobs are essential to our lives as Americans and are greatly appreciated. This paper will expound on the history, usage, and the Cabinet

The Communist Manifesto left a tremendous impact on a society that was rapidly becoming industrialized, and its effects can even be seen on the dominating economic system of the twenty-first century. In the later nineteenth century, however, industrial capitalism was on the brink of ruin. “On many occasions during the past century, Marxists have thought that capitalism was down for the count . . . Yet it has always come back with renewed strength.” Industrial capitalism succeeded in the face of communism, despite numerous economic disasters. As the capitalist economists hopefully noted at the time, these economic earthquakes, temporary in character, soon cured themselves and left capitalism unscathed. Karl Marx sought to create

     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

Though Karl Marx and Alexis de Tocqueville differ, they both contributed greatly to revolutionary concepts of their era. To better understand the analyses between politics, social, and economic changes Marx and Tocqueville discuss, we must first understand the shift of their time and the need for sociological analysis. The 19th century was a time of change and adaptation for everyone and few scholars were capable and willing to understand the impacts these changes would have on society and its entities. Both industrial and democratic revolutions affected their times and created shifts in society. The industrialization affected many aspects of society. It created a structural change in the economy shifting from agrarian income to industrial and commercial income. Technology impacted labour force and production shifting to large-scale manufacturing creating new types of investments. These changes affected class structure, migration, and workers which in turn affected economy and a shift in politics.

As the bourgeois advanced financially, they also gained political influence. They progressed from a once oppressed class to an independent urban republic. As their political influence increased, certain changes became clear. The bourgeois had “torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation (Marx).” This force eventually grew to the point that it was able to force other nations to conform to its values and methods or suffer extinction. As the bourgeois became richer, the proletarians began to suffer more. The balance of property began to shift even more rapidly than before leaving property “concentrated…in a few hands (Marx).” Eventually, the super-efficient production of the manufacturing economy began to take its toll on the bourgeois as well as the proletarians. More goods were produced due to the cheaper costs and ease of manufacture leading to an over-production of goods (Marxism). Over-production became a serious problem, resulting with widespread unemployment of the proletarians, and threats of a revolution on the horizons.

Americans depend on government bureaucracies to accomplish most of what we expect from government, and we are oftentimes critical of a bureaucracy’s handling of its responsibilities. Bureaucracy is essential for carrying out the tasks of government. As government bureaucracies grew in the twentieth century, new management techniques sought to promote greater efficiency. The reorganization of the government to create the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration’s simultaneous push to contract out jobs to private employers raises the question as to whether the government or the private sector can best manage our national security. Ironically, the criticism of the bureaucracy may be a product

Not only did the bourgeoisie run the businesses, but also political matters. The power was shifting to the side of the owners, causing the gap between the proletariats and the bourgeoisie to grow bigger and bigger. The dominant force in Europe was actually creating a weapon without the realization of what they were doing. The labors, living conditions, and status of the proletariats created tension within the structure of the French society. The peasants even paid for the way of others, "it was on the peasants that all the abuses in the assessment