Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Capitalism vs communism
Capitalism vs communism
Marx's ideal society or utopia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Capitalism vs communism
Utopia from a Marxist Perspective Introduction I, Karl Marx, have been studying many various forms of government and feel that the best one to benefit all of mankind is a communist one. After spending about a month in this distant land called Utopia, I Karl Marx, Will like to share why I believe that Utopia does not qualify as a Marxist society and why I think a state like this will fall back into the hands of the Bourgeoisie. The first thing that I want to point out about this land called Utopia is that all the property is in the hands of the people. “The land is so well distributed that no city has less than twelve miles of ground on all sides” (More, 2001). Instead of the land belonging to a ruling class. This ensured that each family is afforded decent housing, without the threat of homelessness. I do however find …show more content…
“They discuss virtue and pleasure, but the primary and principle controversy is about what they think human happiness consists in, whether (More, 2001). They define virtue as living according to nature, we follow the guidance of nature when we obey reason in choosing and avoiding things” (More, 2001). My description of Utopia would not be complete if I did not share my view on their family and social structure. “Lunch and dinner always begin with some reading that concerns morals, bit it is brief lest be tedious” (More, 2001). This ample living space is nothing compared to the tenements in which the working class of England are relegated to live in. I have a great suspicion for the system that these Utopians use to select their leadership. The simple fact that a prince is voted for by a secret ballet makes me question the Utopians methods for being governed. Although the secret ballot is used to keep the selection hidden from the public, it can introduce treasonous plots against the Utopians. Seems to me that these Utopians are longing for the old feudal
Utopia is a term invented by Sir Thomas More in 1515. However, he traces the root two Greek words outopia and eutopia which means a place does not exist and a fantasy, invention. It is widely accepted that Plato was to first to picture a utopian order. In his masterpiece, “Republic”, he formed the principles of ideal commonsense and his utopia (Hertzler, 1922:7). After the classical age, Sir Thomas More assumed to be the first of the utopian writers in early modern period. As a humanist, he gave the world in his “Utopia” a vision of a perfect communistic commonwealth (the history of utopian thought). Utopia’s influence on contemporary and rival scholars is so deep that it has given its name to whole class of literature. Following the appearance of More’s Utopia, there was a lack of Utopian literature for nearly a century (Hertzler, 1922:7). This period ended with the works of Francis Bacon, Campanelle and Harrington. These early modern utopians, being the children of Renaissance, filled with a love of knowledge and high respect for the newly truths of science. Thus, they believed that the common attainment of knowledge means the largest participation of all members of society in its joys and benefits. After the period of early Utopians, continuation of a sprit of French Revolution and initial signs of industrial revolution resulted in the emergence of a new group of Utopians called Socialist Utopians (Hertzler, 1922: 181). The word “Socialism” seems to have been first used by one of the leading Utopian Socialists, St Simon. In politics utopia is a desire that never come true neither now nor afterwards, a wish that is not based on social forces (material conditions and production) and is not supported by the growth and development of political, class forces. This paper discusses the validity of this claim, tries to present and evaluate the political reforms, if any, offered by Socialist Utopians.
What would happen if an utopia wasn’t all that perfect on the inside? Judging by just the appearance of something may lead to a situation of regret and confusion.” The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K. Le Guin and “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson address the theme of religious and traditional symbolism.” The Lottery” demonstrates how something that seems so perfect on the outside isn’t all that great on the inside.
One of the reasons, the so called Utopia fails to exist time and again when attempts are taken solely on the ground of equity is that, even the most idyllic society is somewhat built on the foundation of pain, sacrifice of the weak for the benefits of strong. From the analysis of Omelas and the contemporary North American societies it is clear that there is no Utopia.
Socialism as defined by the parameters of the post revolution into the pre industrial period was the nearly universally marked by the race to empower the working class. Yet, within this broad definition of socialism, Karl Marx, Gracchus Babeuf, and Robert Owen differ in their views of a utopian society and how it should be formed. It was to be their difference in tradition that caused their break from it to manifest in different forms. Although they had their differences in procedure and motive, these three thinkers formed a paradigm shift that would ignite class struggle and set in motion historical revolutions into the present. Within their views of a utopian community, these men grappled with the very virtues of humanity: greed versus optimism.
The so-called Utopia – the quasi-perfect society – flourishes in Margaret Cavendish’s “The Description of a New World, Called a Blazing World” and Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. While the former is a dreamlike account of fantasy rule and the latter a pseudo-realistic travelogue, both works paint a picture of worlds that are not so perfect after all. These imperfections glitter like false gemstones in the paths of these Utopians’ religious beliefs, political systems, and philosophical viewpoints.
What is a utopia? Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary defines _utopia_ as "an imaginary and indefinitely remote place; a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, gov-ernment, and social conditions; *an impractical scheme for social improvement."* In _Brave New World_ Aldous Huxley creates a _dystopia_ (which Webster defines as "an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives") by predicting a pos-sible _utopia_ after many generations. Aldous Huxley analyzes how the utopia degenerated from its original intent into a terrible dystopia. In this essay I will discuss some aspects of this dystopia and relate to Aldous Huxley's dystopian vision.
This serene society greatly contradicts the one we live in. Our society is furnished with hatred and warfare, yet in return, we are given freedom and the privilege of having distinctive characters. Given the nature of human beings, our society is more idealistic to live in. Utopia is an imaginary state, which consists of people who believe they are more capable of living in a group than alone. In such a community, the welfare of the group is the primary interest compared to the comfort of individuals.
Before reading Utopia, it is essential that the reader understand that like Jonathan Swift’s, A Modest Proposal, Utopia is satirical. More creates a frame narrative in which Raphael Hythloday, the novel’s main character, recollects his observations of Utopia during his five-year stay. Hythloday spares no detail in his descriptions of Utopia, as he discusses everything from their military practices, foreign relations, religion, philosophy, and marriage customs. Interestingly enough, everything Hythloday discusses in Book II seems to be a direct response to of all of t...
Karl Marx is living in a world he is not happy with, and seems to think that he has the perfect solution. I am a strong believer in his ideas. We are living in a time period with a huge class struggle. The Bourgroise exploits and the proletariat are being exploited. Marx did not like the way this society was and searched for a solution. Marx looked for “universal laws of human behavior that would explain and predict the future course of events" (36). He saw an unavoidable growth and change in society, coming not from the difference in opinions, but in the huge difference of opposing classes. He speaks of his ideal society and how he is going to bring about this utopia in his book The Communist Manifesto. I am going to share with you more on his ideas of this “world-wide revolution” (36) that would put an end to social classes and allow people to live with equal sharing which would result in a harmonious and much peaceful world.
...urgeoisie and the industrial system in general (especially when comparing it to our current economic crisis), it seems to me that the moral values in Utopia are extremely significant to the development of humanity. Of course, as with a text like The Bible, not all things are meant to be taken literally. I do not concur with everything More wrote about in Utopia. However, I do believe that the overall “act with good intentions and good things will come to you” philosophy is a very important one for all humans to adhere to. I am a bit of a cynic when it comes to human nature, and sadly, in seeing the parallels between Marx’s grievances and our modern state of economic and political affairs, I have little hope that any sort of change in our own government would be successful. Human nature is to be greedy, and unfortunately, I do not think that is ever going to change.
Despite their different approaches, both theories conclude in universal equality, a real equality between humans that has never before been observed in any lasting civilization. While both theories operate on reason and seem to be sound, they remain unproven due to their contingency on various factors of time and place, but mainly on their prerequisite of incorruptibility. Now, while both theories may very well have the odds dramatically stacked against their favor, I believe they must be thoroughly dissected for their content before attempting to condemn them to utopianism. In his Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx created a radical theory revolving not around the man-made institution of government itself, but around the ever present guiding vice of man that is materialism and the economic classes that stemmed from it. By unfolding the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, Marx is able to outline a repeating variable....
...at I think is the best part of More’s utopia is that it is an equal society that has no money or currency. Since every member of the society is working simply for the common good, there being no belief in luxury, and everyone knowing how to grow food, there is no need to have a currency system. Since there is no system or currency, then there is no place for wealth to manifest thus one less prompter of greed. There is also no system of trading in Utopia, so truly everyone is one equal grounds, with the same capabilities and possessions as everyone else. This helps to eliminate the many causes of inequality, so the society that is presented in Utopia is an ideal society.
In essence, Utopia is a written manifestation of More’s humanist beliefs. Many of these views are vicariously present in the character of Raphael Hythloday. For example, Hythloday comments on the unwillingness of Kings to take advice from others, claiming they are “drenched as they are and infected with false values from boyhood and on” (More, 2011, p. 28). The idea of “infection” implies that a man is not naturally corrupt or sinful, but rather pure at heart and simply influenced by the environment an individual is exposed to. This is a key humanist concept, which suggests that human nature is malleable and inconstant, and therefore can be positively influenced to do good. Raphael later states, “Pride is too deeply fixed in human nature to be easily plucked out” (More, 2011, p. 98) Though this may seem contradictory to his previous statement, Hythloday still suggests that human nature can be changed, though he candidly admits that it is difficult. More is attempting to illustrate his own hesitations of serving the King through the conversation between the fictional More and Hythloday, which serves as a representation of More’s conflict between his beliefs as a humanist and a servant of the King.
Thus, when virtues involves in some personal pain, the idea of purpose or need become very important as it deeply depends on self-control. Self-control becomes extremely important when virtues entails stepping out from person’s comfort zone, here you can distinct a virtuous person from others. A virtuous person can control himself and abide to rules and morals whatsoever, while people with no self-control but claiming being virtuous might forget their morals and values in some situations. In conclusion, I argue that there is a connection between virtues and happiness, however I have showed some situations that virtues may lead to unhappiness or confusion.
Yet, without a government, a Utopia will run into difficulties, because there is no leader who can make the decisions for the benefit of the community. In the article, Why Utopias Fail, on pg.88, paragraph 7, the author states, “While many people believe that Utopias are doomed to failure because of human nature, it’s much more useful to approach Utopias the ultimate government challenge.” Even though some people may believe a true utopia is possible, according to these authors, a true utopia is not possible. A utopia may be formed, but it will soon fail because the equal status among all community members results in a lack of leadership or