Structure Of Proletarian Unfreedom Summary

In the article, "Moral Criticism of the Market", author Ken S. Ewert lays out a formidable rebuttal of the Christian Left's criticism of the free market economic system. This view has taken a stronger rise in the past couple years, along with the rise in popularity among many around socialism. Since I have the luxury of having lived long enough to see several attempts at socialism/communism rise and fall, I found its resurgence in popularity during the last election somewhat surprising.

Workers may earn more money today than they did in the last century, but so do the capitalists. The wealth and income gaps between the bourgeois and proletariats is greater than ever. The workers relations to their labor, products and capitalists are unchanged from Marx’s day. The only difference between today’s capitalism and Marx’s is because of a more direct involvement of the state in the capitalist economy. Plus Marx theories concentrate on the more advanced industrial capitalist, he never thought that socialism would be achieved in relatively poor, politically underdeveloped countries. Marx’s vision of socialism emerges from his study of capitalism. Socialism is the unseen potential of capitalism. For a more just and democratic society in which everybody can develop their own qualities of being human.

market protections and economic safety nets provided by socialist policies make for a better quality of life for the average person. Corporate executives and wealthy stockholders, free of limitations and consequences from their actions make economic decisions that act on the lives of millions of people (Democratic Socialists of America 1). Socialist policy can give more control over what is done with resources and money. Democratic socialists believe “social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect” (Democratic Socialists of America 1). Many socialists advocate for concepts such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises that are run by workers and representatives of consumers. “Under socialism, the means of production are not privately owned, and one of socialism's defining features is the role the government plays in controlling the means of production by having a centrally planned economy” (“Preface to ‘What Are Some Concerns About Capitalism’” 1). The power of workplace unions has diminished in recent times and with that workers may not have much control over how they are employed. “The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment” (Democratic Socialists of America

Throughout the Cold War the United States circulated the idea that communism was not just the enemy of capitalism, but would lead to the undermining of American democracy. Under the propaganda communism was written off as a structure that would take the power from the individual and give it to the state allowing for the rise of totalitarian oppression. Communism was made to be a threat to the freedom our government and the free market system provided. Marx’s considered socialism however, as the necessary step to communism, true democracy, equality and freedom in releasing the individual from exploitation at the hands of the bourgeois. In the following paper, I aim to demonstrate that socialism is more compatible with the values of

Historically, freedom was viewed strictly as political liberty, but this has evolved into the right to live as one chooses, equipped with essential resources (Charmichael 41). Similarly, equality has broadened from the mere idea of equal citizenship rights to the idea that some government interference may be required to ensure the accessibility of rights. For example, all people have the right to legal counsel, but for those who cannot afford a lawyer, legal aid may be required. Though liberals agree that everyone should have equal access to rights, the extent that government should minimize social inequities is debatable (42). In general, liberal democrats prioritize political equality, entailing equal voting rights and representative government (Harder 75; Plattner 131-2), as well as economic freedom, which protects property rights and allows businesses to operate free of government (Kellogg 52; Plattner 128). As such, economic inequalities are typically viewed as a natural consequence of freedom. Nevertheless, some liberals argue that government need not constrain economic freedom if it promotes equal opportunities (Mintz 105-6).

It is saying everyone gets this which limits creativity but at the same time limits the difference among the population. “Workers earn the same, regardless of their position. There are not very many differences between the highest and lowest wages.” (English-Online) This is what really creates the essence of the “no class society”. Having little differences in wages causes people to mainly spend money the same way, mostly on necessities then the extra on whatever the government offers to them. Having everyone make the same wage causes less differences because people can’t diversify themselves because the products they buy that they think can diversify themselves are actually products that any person in their communist society could buy. A Mathematical perspective on this standpoint is that if there is 10 people, they all get $100 but have to spend $75 on food and water leaving $25 for them to spend on whatever they want, meaning they can all only spend the same amount of money on

Furthermore, Karl Marx believes the state can be nothing more than the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the wage-earners; for this to take place the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie or the class who owns most of the country’s wealth and means of production. In essence, Karl Marx, believed that there is a chronological order of the development of society from capitalism, which is developing into communism is impossible without a transition period; the state can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the working class. After which, the people are no longer wage slaves and no more classes, then will the state cease to exist and freedom truly comes forth. Nevertheless, Karl Marx believes a capitalistic society conveys a false democracy, a democracy only for the rich; that communism is only capable of providing a full democracy, a democracy for

We are coerced into working for capitalists, or private owners of the means of production, if there is no reasonable alternative to selling our labor power in a capitalist society. Of course we are free to not work and suffer. But Cohen retorts, “The acknowledgment that he is free to starve to death gets its sarcastic power from the fact that he is free to starve to death: no one threatens to make him stay alive[...] But to infer that he is therefore not forced to sell his labor power is to employ a false account of what it is to be forced to do something.” In other words, we are unfree if we do not have the means to pursue our own conception of the good. Consider someone who tells a relative they are free to visit them this weekend even though the buses are not running. Can we really say such a person is truly free to visit his or her relative? Effective freedom is what we really should be talking about, not merely formal freedom. Beyond the limitations to freedom that capitalism engenders, it also promotes bad virtues. The incentive structure in a capitalist society encourages people to pursue their own self-interest and be fearful of others. “Indeed, the history of the twentieth century encourages the thought that the easiest way to generate productivity in a modern society is by nourishing the motives of which

A lot has been said and written on Friedrich Engels’ and Karl Marx’s philosophy on Socialism and its magnificent benefits if implemented in any communal system. They both argue that a government or a system that is inclined towards equitable distribution of resources among its citizens is far much efficient than an independent system that is influenced by individualistic desires−otherwise known as capitalism (Marx & Engels 225). Likewise, their argument emphasizes that a society of people is far much important than the interests of a single individual. Nonetheless, despite their efforts and invaluable principles that echo through time, their philosophies still face a significant number of difficulties: The central one being the emergence of other forms of socialist ideologies that in one

In exchange for a socialist government that regulates the economy ineffectively, the people must sacrifice all or many of their property rights to the state (pg. 407); whereas, in capitalism, private property ownership is maintained by individuals (pg. 406). This is the outstanding ideological difference between capitalism and socialism.

     Throughout history, there have been many systems developed in order to have a better society. Two of the most analyzed, and debated systems that have tired to change an economy for the best are communism, and capitalism. Communism, and capitalism have been compared on many levels, such as why they will or will not work, and which one works better. Throughout this essay I will concentrate on the differences, and similarities of how each operates, along with the benefits, and problems that each of them produces.

Socialism presents a more democratic way of handling the economy, with the people allowed to share much of the same economic freedom that capitalism offers. Depending on the form of socialism, people may be able to sell and buy the goods they want, establish companies, and do as they would like in the economy. However, a key concept in socialism, which will exist in any socialist country, is the government’s lingering hand in the economy. For example, in Sweden, which practices a more capitalistic socialism, the government cuts 50-60% out of the everyday worker’s paycheck while allowing a mostly free market system. However, Sweden provides every citizen free healthcare and education all the way through college. In spite of Sweden’s successful “socialism”, however, there still stands examples of failed attempts at socialism. A modern one, for example, is Venezuela. Today, the country is in shambles with the vast majority of their people resorting to

Rather than eradicate capitalism, socialism exists within it. Moreover, democratic socialism is characterised through the balance and compromise between free market capitalism and the Governmental state (Bernstein 1993: 142, Heywood 2012:128, Anderson 1985: 10). Marx considered socialism as a class movement, which is what subsequently played out in the political realm, once universal suffrage had been achieved. For previously powerless people it was the only peaceful way to be heard: “Electoral politics constitutes the mechanism through which anyone can as a citizen express claims to goods and services.” (Przeworski 1985:11).

This is to say that, if everyone in society was on the same level their would be no need for motivation.Often times persons feel down and hopeless, and when persons who were originally from the poorer class in society share their life experiences regarding how they became successful, it motivates and inspires those individuals to work harder.. Furthermore, it there was no conflict in society the society could not function. For example; if everyone was a bank manager, how would we get our food to eat. So it can be said that society is controlled by the benefit of one group of from the other, because without farmers and hunters there would be no food to eat. Additionally, not all capitalists act out of self-interest and lower-class individuals who want to succeed can do so through hard work. Its not in all cases that the upper class individuals take advantage of the lower class. In some instances they push their workers to get a higher education, but the persons are not willing to push themselves. It can be proven that if one knows what he/she wants in life, the only way to it is through hard work. Many persons, however, are lazy and so they never move up on the social

After mapping out the analogous chains between an affable camping trip and socialism, Cohen asks us to consider whether the diffusion of such trip principles across wide society would be desirable and feasible, two questions that he declares to be independent. I assess them separately as he did but believe them to be intricately linked. Cohen acknowledges the possibility of man’s insufficiently generous nature as a barrier to feasibility without addressing it further. However, I think it’s a mistake to de-emphasize the self-seeking nature of humans. More specifically, we will find Cohen’s conception of socialism undesirable once we honestly confront our limited capacity to uphold principles such as communal reciprocity. The feasibility of socialism as an implementable system is also compromised due to our propensity for championing our own interests. If we give proper weight to the human condition in its actual form, we will understand socialism to be undesirable and appreciate our self-seeking nature as a serious threat to the feasibility of socialism.