Who Is Polanyi's Panopticon?

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

Marx and Hayek espouse vastly different perspectives on capitalism. While they tend to disagree on most characteristics of capitalism their ideologies’ do intersect on a few perspectives. First of all, they agree that capitalism is a powerful economic system. Secondly, both view capitalism as unpredictable. Yet, despite these similarities, Marx and Hayek disagree on most attributes of capitalism. One disagreement is the historical process of how capitalism came to be the dominant economic order. Another point of departure between the ideologies is that Hayek understands capitalism to be the most able economic system to provide for the population. Yet, Marx insists his economy is able to outperform and provide freedom for society. The economic

First, the Christian Left’s rejection of free-market policies stems from the belief that the economic system promotes individuals to gain benefits at the expense of another. Furthermore, the demands of a free market can corrupt even a selfless individual by engendering an environment where one has no other choice but to be self-serving (Ewert, 1989). On the contrary, Ewert (1989), rebuttals their argument and argues that the free market promotes autonomous, not selfish, behavior and actions. Moreover, Ewert (1989), does not deny the fact that selfishness is present in the free market. However, greed can be found in every economic system because

“The path to economic growth is not engineered by the government; rather, the path to economic prosperity is built by the people.” This quote relates to classical liberalism because it displays a ring wing perspective, which indicates devalued government authority in relation to aspects of individualism. Overall demonstrating the economic perspective that favours the absence of government involvement. It brings into question what the most efficient way to run an economy is, and what is the best way to manage an economy to maintain stability. Some believe that government intervention in an economy is dangerous because it adds to the nation’s overall inflation rate and national debt. Friedrich Hayek is an economic theorist supporting little

According to Adam Smith’s, The Wealth of Nation, the best economic benefits for all can be achieved when an individual concerned with their own interests. Self-interest is when an individual makes decisions that are in their own benefit or best interest over any other parties involved (Book 1 chapter 2 §2). Smith argues that the idea of individual continuously make decisions that benefits their own situation will eventually lead to achieving better quality of life for everyone. Hence, people wouldn’t have to depend on other to make the decisions for them and encourages division of labour within the society (Book 1 chapter 2 §3). Withal the theory of self-interest is alike with selfish in our words, therefore the following essay explores how these two concepts differ. Nevertheless, Smith is also aware that the theory of self-interest may cause dispute between master and workers, thus he suggests a resolution to this kind of dispute. Accordingly, along with an example of worker’s dispute, this essay evaluates whether the resolution that Smith suggested is feasible in the modern society.

The benefits of communism have been debated for centuries. The underlining principle in communism is altruism. Benjamin Cardozo explains why altruism and communism will never be successful in reality. In Cardozo’s essay “The Altruist in Politics”, he explains that socialism will never work due to the fact it relies on altruism; although his argument is a strong one in the sense that he is passionate about his opinion and provides supporting evidence, it is problematic because of the false claims and never fully explaining why people are drawn to socialism if it is deficient.

Karl Marx, in the Capital, developed his critique of capitalism by analyzing its characteristics and its development throughout history. The critique contains Marx’s most developed economic analysis and philosophical insight. Although it was written in 1850s, its values still serve an important purpose in the globalized world and maintains extremely relevant in the twenty-first century.

As far back as man has been on earth, he has been driven towards building a community among his peers. Whether that is a community of hunters and gatherers who share whatever the day has brought to them within their tribe, or a larger community which within its structure lie the inner dwellings of division of labor and societal classes. Adam Smith (18th Century), John Stuart Mill (19th Century), and Karl Marx (19th Century) are of the same cloth, but in modern terms their community is referenced as a government, and they each have their own distinct opinions on the 'drive' instilled within human nature that shape their personal economic theories. I will be dissecting the views of each of these economists, in regards to the role of

role it has to play in industrialization, and its general impact upon the wealth of the state.

Capitalism and Freedom, written by Milton Friedman, seems to focus significantly on the connections between the economics and politics, and the effect that those have in various aspects of society. This relationship was referred to throughout the book, and the topics Friedman discusses ranged between governmental control of money, to foreign policy and trade and the effect that has on our economy. Through the course of the book, Friedman constantly refers to his “classical liberal” view, which focuses on the freedoms and power of the individual in society. Friedman shows his support of this view during the book using the idea of a laissez-faire government. For Freidman, government involvement in issues regarding society should

Unlike Keynes, Hayek, in his book The Road to Serfdom, points out that any form of government intervention is dangerous and leads to serfdom. He argued that central government planning leads to serfdom or servitude which destroys personal freedom. Society has tried to ensure continuous prosperity by centralized planning which leads to totalitarianism. For example, socialism was supposed to be a means of assuring equality through restrain and servitude whereas democracy seeks equality in liberty-personal freedom and economical freedom. On the other hand, planning which is coercive is the least method of regulation where as cooperation of free market is superior because it is the only method that can adjust our activities with each other without the intervention of the authority. Furthermore, he argued that central planning is undemocratic because it imposes the will of the minority upon the majority. In pursuing their centralized goals, they take money or properties of the majority thus, destroying individual freedom. In addition, centralized planning reduces the individual to merely a means to be used by the authority as well as, giving away individual’s economic liberty. Unlike centralized planning, an open society offers more personal and economical freedom even to the very poor. He concluded by saying “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it

There is perhaps not a more famous ongoing dialectic argument in the field of political economy than the one between Adam Smith and Karl Marx in regards to capitalism. The two thinkers, although coming to radically different conclusions about the outcomes of the capitalist system for all parties involved, agree on a surprising number of ideas such as labor being the source of commodities’ value, as well as the fact that the division of labor increases productivity. However, their different conceptions of what determines the price of a commodity, the driving force behind and the effects of the division of labor, and the purpose of the capitalist system have widespread implications that cause their holistic arguments to diverge considerably.

Discipline with its two facets. One where it serves as an enclosure, wherein there are negative functions (breaking of communications, punishing of unauthorized movements), and the other where it is a machine, wherein power is lightened but more effective (Utopian, perhaps). This disciplinary part of the Panopticon had operated throughout the ages. Disciplinary institutions, whether they be military, educational, or religious, flourished in the classical years. And what processes were involved that led to this important piece of a Panoptical machine, you may ask? First, was the “functional inversion of the disciplines.” This simply means that what started out as one thing became totally different. For example, the military started out as a

This concept criticizes the market fundamentalism. Markets will always be controlled by norms, society, culture and morality. Polanyi means the idea of a self-regulating economy is a myth and the free market is a political creation. The state plays a huge role in managing markets such as money, land and labor. John M. Keynes agreed with Polanyi, it doesn’t exist some “invisible hand”. He argued for governmental regulation and that the state should be in the economy with the companies. The state should boost and help the economy when it’s bad and help the struggling

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.