Summary Of The Argument For A Humanistic Renewal Of Socialism

Science is one of man’s most powerful tools in interpreting his status in the universe; however, with this great power comes great responsibility, and therefore, there must be reasonable expectations and restrictions, but does that mean that restrictions need to be placed to limit the pursuit of science? Or rather, does society need restrictions to limit how science is to be used? Literature and historical events both point to the single truth that society, not science, must be checked.

The birth of modern science created conflict between religion and science in European societies. With the conflicts, the people had started to question the church. These conflicted changes between religion and science, had positively impacted the common people and had greatly damaged the stability of the church itself. The idea that everything was to be perfect affected the communities of the people. The ideas that the church had displayed in decades past, rejected any further discoveries or advancements that they didn’t see fit.

John Paul II and Ratzinger speak of the dangers of technology in their respective works, each expressing concerns that we not abandon our moral, ethical or spiritual compasses in the face of scientific or technological advances. John Paul II, in Fides et ratio, approaches this towards the end of his work, when he addresses a word to scientists. He speaks of the neverending amazement of the achievements of science, especially in the twentieth century, where scientific research offers greater knowledge of the universe as a whole, from molecular to the atomic structures that it is made up of. John Paul II urges scientists to continue their works, but cautions that it must be true to the philosophical and ethical values of humankind, which he states are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person. In the finite reality of the world or of man, he states, the never-ending search for the truth or answers always brings about new questions, always pointing to something higher, the access to Mystery.

Marx and Weber both provide a critical analysis of capitalism, studying the origins of capitalism and the general characteristic of today’s capitalistic society. This essay will be discussing the similarities and differences between both sociologist’s in their writings of capitalism. To begin with, Marx’s work and contributions will be considered, particularly focusing on his main book, Capital, and how this book is a very clear demonstration of the emergence of capitalism in the nineteenth century. His concept of alienation will be looked at, as will his idea of commodity fetishism and how he placed paramount importance on the idea of exchange value in developing a capitalist society. This essay will then be moving on to a comparison

The specialised critique of capitalism found in the Communist Manifesto (written by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels), provides a basis for the analysis and critique of the capitalist system. Marx and Engels wrote about economical in relation to the means or mode of production, ideology, alienation and most fundamentally, class relations (particularly between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat). Collectively, these two men created the theory of Marxism. There are multiple critiques of Marxism that attack the fundamental tenants of their argument. Several historical events have fueled such criticisms, such as the fall of the Soviet Union, where Marxism was significantly invalidated and condemned. On the flip side, Marxism has been widely supported in times of capitalist hardships. What viewpoint a person will hold towards Marxism is largely dependable on the economical environment in which they live. Further, it is also important to remember that Marx and Engels lived in a very different era than today’s society, and the concept of capitalism may have arguably changed quite a lot over time. Therefore, the principles found in the Manifesto may often have to be refurnished and reapplied to fit different economic environments.

Marx’s primarily aims to explain how communism will free men, end the class struggle. The work argues that class struggles, and the exploitation of one class by another is the source of all inequality. Marx’s theories become one the motivating force behind all historical developments. The work strongly advocates the freedom of the proletariats which Marx’s claims can only be achieved when property and other goods cease to be privately owned. He see’s that private property has been a problem through out history, capital that aids the ruling class to maintain control. Marx argues that the lower class come together in a revolution and gain power and eventually take the power away from the upper class.

“Analysis of the content of these ideologies suggests that ‘science’ is no single thing: characteristics attributed to science vary widely depending upon the specific intellectual or professional activity designated as ‘nonscience’, and upon particular goals of the boundary-work. The boundaries of science are ambiguous, flexible, historically changing, contextually variable, internally inconsistent, and sometimes disputed.” […] [S]cientific knowledge is at once theoretical and empirical, pure and applied, objective and subjective, exact and estimative, democratic (open for all to confirm) and elitist (experts alone confirm), limitless and limited (to certain domains of knowledge).” (Gieryn, 1983,

Science is one of the most essential tools awarded to the human race to ensure its evolution and longevity. Without science, it is plausible to imagine that the entire human race would have been wiped out of existence. The factual and unbiased nature of science in conjunction with the empirical method prevents findings from being based on the agenda of any one individual or groups of people. Early scientists such as Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, and Francis Bacon strived to ensure that “science should be a demonstrative process involving careful deductive reasoning and documentation rather than a purely mental exercise carried out in isolation” (Dziak, 2016 p.1). However, in today’s society, it is a sad sight to see the manipulation of science in support of social and political agendas.

Karl Marx continues his doctrine by acknowledging that the bourgeoisie, “has historically played a most revolutionary part” shamelessly dividing man against nature, leaving man to solely rely on self-interest (Manifesto), describing how the bourgeoisie introduced the industrial revolution, revolutionizing instruments improving machinery, while also playing devil’s advocate by noting how the Bourgeoisie has, “reduced the family relation to a mere money relation” (Manifesto) and that,

Karl promised to resolve the capitalist system but he thought these problems couldn’t be solved and that capitalism was doomed because of the diminishing profits rates. Thus, “The traditional marxists explanation of capitalist rationality is to root it in the consciousness of some sector of the ruling class.”(Block). Another statement was, “Marx used the idea of a conscious, directive ruling class as a polemical shorthand for an elaboration of the structural mechanisms through which control over the means of production leads to control over other aspects of society”(Block). A more general world of Marx’s importance as a sociological thinker became apparent in the 1890s with the publication of a long essay by Werner Sombart on Marx’s theory of modern capitalism. In this book Tönnies expounded his distinction between two forms of society “community”(gemeinschaft) and “association”(gesellschaft) which has

Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep

This concept of Marx’s intentions to question the theory on capitalism and what may change over time dealing with the future evolution and future communism was not unfamiliar and ordinary at this time. Marx used these theories on the development of communism and evolution in the future. He later goes into detail on the dependency relationship between origins within capitalism. Marx further initiates his ideology on the convergence from capitalism to communism and the occurrence of different phases throughout this including revolutionary and political alterations. He evaluates the essential values of the proletariat and how their role in the capitalist society was the fundamental groundwork of the examination on the regulations regarding the

Prominent Karl Marx’s theory on the division of labor and the social class structure, as outlined by his concept of “the mode of production”, directly relates to social equality, ideology, and social economic power. “The mode of production” is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social concepts, such as the relations between social classes, political and legal systems, work relations, morality and ideology, and many other phenomena, arise. These social concepts form the superstructure, for which the economic system forms the base. This theory is also related to ordinary people’s struggle for truth, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness also known

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

The topic that Weber treated at that time is as topical as ever, and has hardly lost any of its explosiveness, as the scientific enterprise is still in a state of upheaval – with numerous developments and tendencies. His questions today are so topical as at that time, that this work can also be researched without any problems approximately 100 years later. He follows the discussion about the future of science and the central question of how science is designed as a profession and how it is to be understood, as the academic environment has already begun to change. As an example, Weber cites the