Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Lenin and the bolsheviks marxism
Essay on marxism/ leninism
Essay on marxism/ leninism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism): Reflection
Summary of Content
This article condemns socialism as anti Christian philosophy. From beginning to end, its hateful tone and description of socialism does not change. In the first paragraph, it already denounces socialism as a deadly plague creeping into society. Later, it ends with calling socialism a step into wickedness.
Most concerning about socialism is condemning of two things. First, the Church (or so the article claims) was built on the inequality of men. Hence, socialism creates chaos because people refuse to obey higher power. This, to the church’s eye, is dangerous because it destroys God’s natural order.
As well, socialism permitting divorces is not viewed pleasantly by the Church. Divorcing, the article states, is not permitted even in barbarous people (keep in mind the date at which this article was written). In eyes of the Church at the time, socialists are regarded lower than even barbarous people are.
Questions On the Article:
1) Why is it that socialism is condemned in the Church’s eye since in Heaven, there is not supposed to be any ownership of property?
2) Why is it that the church seems to promote the inequality of men? Is that not contradictory to the Bible stating that all people are made in the image of God.
3) What is the reason that the Church forbids divorcing?
Objective Conclusion
It is evident that socialism is evil in the eyes of the Church. The church correctly claims that socialism cannot create the Utopia it promises. Most people in socialist nations are not happy. As seen in histories of China and Russia under a communist government, socialism creates tyrannical governments where civilians are lazy and unmotivated. Such is not someone beautiful in the Church’s eyes.
Reflection/Subjective Reactions
“Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty” (POPE LEO XIII, 1878, 1); “Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism)’s condemnation is devastating, and seem unfit for a social system created to imitate heaven; now, no longer are the poor oppressed and social inequality plaguing its unfortunate victims. Through invoking language, “Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism) contrasts everything socialism represents with God’s will. From God’s marriage to church and “natural law”, it condemns socialism as “deadly plague that creeps into the very fibers of human” (POPE LEO XIII, 1878, 1). Unfortunately, the presented arguments victimize socialism more than to reveal its evils. The language, though full of powerful words, holds empty of evidence to justify the claim.
Commanding Heights: Social Assignment 1. Response of socialism to Classical liberalism: Classical liberalism is an ideology that embraces the principles of individualism such as rule of law, individual rights and freedoms, private property, economic freedom, self-interest, and competition. Classical liberalism stresses the importance of human rationality. Just as it values political freedom, classical liberalism also holds freedom to be the basic standard in economics, and believes the most beneficial economic system to be the free market. Whereas, the term socialism, when generally used, refers to any ideology that believes that resources should be controlled by the public for the benefit of everyone in society and not by private interests for the benefit of private owners and investors.
He affirms that the twentieth century ideas of socialism and that it cannot work because of history’s “proof” that people are selfish and governments abuse power. However, he declares that notion “is too simple.” Furthermore, he questions if common sense is from the “utopian dreams of the past,” then why can Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Johnson’s ideas be reevaluated for the present day. In fact, he affirms that the idea that markets safeguard the democracy and freedom that the citizens of the United States hold so dearly is more utopian than those aforementioned. Concluding, he reiterates that by ignoring “socialist” ideas, the established government is doing a great “disservice” to the United States.
roots and is by no means as socialist as it was. But is it still
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.
This paper proposes to argue that the rise of Socialism in American society was due in large part to the reaction to the disenchantment of American citizens with their governments and the effect industrialization had on society. This historian proposes that while the victim of a great deal of opposition, the Socialist movement contributed to a number of the reforms made during the Progressive era. The historical evidence will show that many of the beliefs that drove the reforms of the era were propagated by individuals and groups associated with the Socialist movement in America, and that it affected all geographical regions of the United States, though some more than others. Ultimately the goal is to show how Socialism, despite being considered in some circle anathema to being American, was heavily involved in shaping society in the twenti...
There is always at least one odd duck, which stands out from the crowd. The same is true when it comes to politics. One of the most controversial political ideas to ever come to power, is communism. Branching from the socialist party, in 1848, extremist Karl Marx expressed his theories in The Communist Manifesto. This is a text that is still debated today. In an article in the Journal of Social Society, William Niemi wrote about Marx’s ideas still present today. “The rethinking about Karl Marx and Marxism continues some 20 years after the fall of the Soviet dictatorship and its satellites.” (Niemi). Within this volume of ideas, Marx expressed many highly debated topics, the most controversial of course, being communism itself. Though many of
The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, a period of political turmoil in Europe. Its meaning in today’s capitalistic world is a very controversial issue. Some people, such as the American government, consider socialism taboo and thus disregard the manifesto. They believe that capitalism, and the world itself, has changed greatly from the one Marx was describing in the Manifesto and, therefore, that Marx’s ideas cannot be used to comprehend today’s economy. Others find that the Manifesto highlights issues that are still problematic today. Marx’s predicative notions in the Communist Manifesto are the key to understanding modern day capitalism.
Marx predicted that religion would disappear as a phenomenon of false (because there is no God, according to Marx), and churches will become museums. All see how the number of churches in the world increases, a church becoming the heavy believers. However, the council rejected Marx, and yet kept his not believing in God.
Equal work, equal wages, equal food, equal opportunities, equal power. On the outside, a society where every one of its citizens was completely equal sounds and appears like a good thing, even a great thing. No one had too much power, everyone seemed to be happy, and most importantly everyone worked to better the community instead of themselves. This is what Socialism was portrayed as: a system in which everyone worked together to benefit the state. Contradicting this fabricated image, life under Socialism did not succeed in equality for men and women, and it caused people to do whatever necessary in order to gain some sense of individualism. While equality for all people in all aspects of life sounds appealing, it was an unachievable goal
Socialism is basically the opposite of liberalism because it appeals to the working class and worked in countries with authoritative governments with large presences in their countries economy. Russia and Germany are two of the countries socialism absolutely thrived in. The working class appealed to this ideology in government because it balanced everyone, made everyone equal, by giving everyone the same wage. So a manager of the factor would make as much as a janitor in the same factory. Under Russian rule Jews were treated as aliens. The Russians would form pogroms or riots so that jews would flee Russia. This was one of the examples of anti-Semitism, or anti-judaism in Europe. Jews were considered evil and were chased out of many towns and villages because of their association to money. And with the new government reforms if money was bad then jews had everything to do with it. These ideologies have helped shape the world in the place it is
“When people in the United States are introduced to the concept of socialism - whether in the popular media or in a high school class - they are presented with a simple equation: socialism = a crippled economy that fails to meet people's basic needs + a totalitarian government” (Robertson). Robertson proves a good point in saying this, because generally children in the United States grow up either being taught that socialism is bad or evil, which is completely wrong, or they end up being taught nothing of socialism at all. It is until these children are exposed to a socialist government, through education or experience (which few usually have the privilege of doing) t...
Socialism isn’t the only ideology which is commonly misunderstood. The term “fascist” is commonly used as a political weapon to label a person as being very authoritarian. This attack is often overused, however, which could be dangerous. If a real fascist attempts to rise to
"Karl Marx on Religion: The Opiate of the Masses?" About.com Agnosticism / Atheism. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2014.
In an article titled Socialism Is Not Harmful they instead believe that democracy and socialism complement one another and that the corporation and the society should meet the needs of all people (2). The Democratic Socialist do not believe that the government should own every business, but that businesses should be ran by the employees who work for them (2). Their main goal is to get wealth into as many peoples hands as possible. What they despise is not the very rich, instead what they are actively speaking against is the gap between the very rich and the rest of the working class. The remainder of the article is spent trying to discredit myths spread about socialism, such as the government wanting to own everything and assuring people that they are not
While there are certainly arguments against socialism, the arguments against it outweigh. Socialism is better because it allows for the government to provide for the basic needs of all citizens—this is impossible in a market economy, and outweighed by the negative aspects of a command economy. In a time of great national economic and political turmoil, it is important that a consensus be made as to the best economic system for the U.S. and the rest of the world. In my opinion, this best system is socialism.