The Is The Most Moral System Of Political Organization

Contemporary economics are best explained by comparing two foundational thinkers that have contributed to the better understanding of liberalism, one being its proponent Adam Smith and the other being its most significant critic, Karl Marx. Both thinkers are profoundly important in locating and investigating the roots of neoliberalism as well as exploring alternatives ways to challenge neoliberal economics in the face of its post-cold war expansion as the inevitable and only alternative to redistribution and economic justice. This essay traces the emerging ideas of classical liberalism as articulated by Smith and their subsequent deployment in the debates that produced neoliberalism. In this context, Marx and Marxism are utilized to expose and deconstruct the shortcomings of both liberalism and neoliberalism and their limits in providing solutions to the structural symptoms of liberal and neoliberal capitalism.

Modern economic society can be described as a combination of certain points from several theories combined into one. Changing dynamics and economic needs of nations has spawned a development of various, and contrasting, economic systems throughout the world. Perhaps the two most contrasting philosophies seen in existence today are that of capitalism and communism. The two philosophers most notably recognized for their views on these economic systems are Adam Smith and Karl Marx. This paper will identify several fundamental aspects of economic philosophy as described by Smith and Marx, and will compare and contrast the views of these

The idea that capitalism allows for the most freedom out of any political structure has been long perpetuated by proponents of capitalism. The thinkers in favor of capitalism, according to socialist thinkers, misinterpret what it means for a person to be truly free in a society, and capitalism cannot achieve that goal of making everyone truly free. Cohen believes that socialism not only is more attractive, morally, but also less constraining on liberty than the capitalist theorists believe because capitalism forces the proletariat to “sell their labor power” (Cohen, The Structure of Proletarian Unfreedom, 3). Cohen’s explains why socialism is morally acceptable as a theory of government through the example of the camping trip thought experiment, where the principles of community and egalitarianism are brought out. In this essay I will explore how Cohen forms these arguments, and then form counter arguments from a capitalist standpoint to try to derail his arguments.

| What form of political state is best?Can a government restrict the liberty of its citizens?

Howard Zinn argues that the state has three main purposes. They are “to settle upper-class disputes peacefully, control lower-class rebellion, and adopt policies that would further the long-range stability of the system”.(Zinn Online). In the case of putting down and controlling a lower class rebellion is very prevalent in the Anti-Renters rebellion. After the economic crisis of 1837 many tenants, who were now unemployed, owed money to the land lords who owned massive amounts of land. Many of the tenants came together out of fear of being evicted, and were against the monopolization of the land. When these poor tenants began to rebel, the state had to use force to suppress them, “The governor sent three hundred troops in, declaring a state of rebellion existed, and soon almost a hundred Anti-Renters

This implies a relationship in which the state through its instruments dominates society. Hence in the totalitarian state all political, economic, social, cultural and intellectual activities should be directed towards fulfilling the aims of the state” (“Totalitarianism”, 1999). In a totalitarian state, individuals have no rights and they must obey the government without question. If individuals questioned or disagreed with the government, they were silenced by death or prison.

The government occasionally push their powers to the Sates and tried to lessen the expansion of the federal government. On the other hand, the states complied case in point, Presidents Franklin Roosevelt 1930, and Reagan 81-89, used the New Deal program. Programs such as Agricultural Adjustment Administration to slowly reduced the growth of federal government, these programs administered by the states (ushistory, 3b). In the 60s, Nixon on his side openly wanted the powers of the federal government given back to the states that gave him a win during his campaign (ushistory, 3b). Also, the New Federalism during Reagan’s administration to returned the power to the states, unfortunately according to the United Sates Constitution the federal government law would triumph over any other states law. The states have the right to control and make laws on citizens safety, welfare, health, education, and protection. These powers only delegated to the states. For the states to able to counter the power of the federal government, the state should have enumerated powers, inherent powers, and elastic clause.

It is complacent to think one can obey the law in order for society to progress. The state should never be looked at as a metric for ethics. One can observe history to understand that. Freedom is a constant struggle that involves grassroot movements, collectivization and solidarity of the communities. The people must liberate themselves and cannot expect oppressors to relinquish their rights. One can see these concepts in movements throughout history.

The stability of the state is based upon the foundation of the government. Shaky foundations lead to short-lived or miserable nations. Governments based upon religion, birthrights, or one man generally do not have solid foundations. The greatest foundation a government can have is the support of its citizens. Governments which cater to

Some contemporary Scholars like Quentin Skinner define the state today as "a locus of power distinct from either the ruler or the body of the body of the people." (Skinner, Foundations of Modern Political Thought, II, p.355). Yet, others would argue that the potency of the word "state" derives from the fact that it means both ruler and people. In other words, the state is at the same time loved for its promise of order and stability for the whole community and feared for its threat of coercion by the power which does the ordering. Both schools of thought may be right for there is no universal definition of the concept. But no intellectual discussion about the concept of the state is complete without a review of the writings of St. Thomas

However, there are also various different disadvantages to a ¨small¨ state government. One disadvantage is that the state had a lot of control over the people´s lives and that could bother some people. Another disadvantage is due to the size of ¨small¨ states, since they are small the national government will always have somewhat more power over them (Ginsberg 68). For example if there is a direct conflict over a law between the national and state government, the conflict will most likely have a solution that goes in favor of the national government (Ginsberg 68).

Unfortunately you could see that the totalitarian nature of the Marxist view on state wasn’t so easily discerned. But after a glance at Marxist theory the practice put Marxist organisations into reveal what appeared to be a paradox. Marx and Engels claimed to be opponents of state but this insist that a fundamental goal to abolish the institution. But in, the vast majority of Marxist organisations has been advocates of the drastic extension of the role of the state in society. The Marxist movement has no longer aimed to revolved in the social-democratic which can promotes the systemic expansion to the role of state in capitalist society.

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).

As anarchy is one of the most debated cases in the International Relations study, many philosopher and scientist argue about the word ‘Anarchy’. In Wendt’s journal “Anarchy is what states make of it”, Alexander Wendt conveys that anarchy does not by chance lead to a self-help system (Wendt A. , 1992). The term anarchy comes from the Greek, 'anarchia', which means 'absence of authority'. Generally, we can define Anarchy as the condition where there is no sovereignty, the rules that disappeared because of the absence of authority. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines the word anarchy as ‘a situation in which there is no organization and control, especially in society, because there is no effective government’. George C. Lewis states that “Anarchy is one of the vaguest and ambiguous words in language” .

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.