Paper

1369 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Capitalism and socialism comparison

For thousands of years, individuals have been discussing the benefits of capitalism, socialism, or concepts fundamentally similar to those models within society. Winston Churchill managed to sum up a more modern view of socialism by stating, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries,” (Winston Churchill). The world recognizes that capitalism is not inherently equal, but economists are united in the notion that capitalism is more efficient than socialism. Gerald Cohen, one of the most vocal advocates of socialism, even noted that market societies function well, but Cohen ultimately argued that capitalism is immoral. In this essay, I will argue that self-interest within market societies is morally justifiable. Cohen misinterprets the concept of selfishness in much the same why he misconstrues ideal socialism to realistic capitalism.
In order to further understand the corresponding arguments to my thesis, I plan to reference Gerald Cohen’s essay Why Not Socialism? to provide background information. Cohen refers to a hypothetical, socialist camping trip among a group of friends where all members of the group work together. He contrasts this socialist camping trip with a capitalist trip where individuals attempt to maximize profit. During the capitalist trip, Cohen notes the greed apparently displayed by certain members of the group (Cohen 9). From this premise, Cohen concludes that everyone would want to be on the socialist camping trip. Therefore, everyone would, according to Cohen, prefer socialism in real life and define it as the most morally permissible argument. Socialism eliminates inequalities via the equality of opportunity, and t...

... middle of paper ...

...combination of market orientated conditions, countries in general increase their GDP, and poorer members of society are able to improve their lives.
In conclusion, Cohen recognizes that market societies can be more efficient, but he references selfishness within the markets as an immoral characteristic. Similar to how Cohen miscomprehends his comparison between ideal socialist camping and idea capitalist camping, he misconstrues selfishness versus self-interest. By building an argument starting with a banana, self-interest can actually be seen as morally justifiable. While selfishness does exist and businessman have undoubtedly done horrible acts, self-interest is the true driving characteristic of markets. Self-interest, therefore, can be morally justified because the role they play in markets rests with allowing individuals to be concerned with their well-being.

Show More
Related

  • Robber Barons Dbq

    857 Words  | 2 Pages

    At this time, Vanderbilt had emerged as a top leader in the railroad industry during the 19th century and eventually became the richest man in America. Vanderbilt is making it abundantly clear to Americans that his only objective is to acquire as much wealth as possible even if it is at the expense of every day citizens. Another man who echoed such sentiments is Andrew Carnegie. In an excerpt from the North American Review, Carnegie takes Vanderbilt’s ideas even further and advocates for the concentration of business and wealth into the hands of a few (Document 3). Carnegie suggests that such a separation between the rich and the poor “insures survival of the fittest in every department” and encourages competition, thus, benefiting society as a whole. Carnegie, a steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest businessmen to date, continuously voiced his approval of an ideology known as Social Darwinism which essentially models the “survival of the fittest” sentiment expressed by Carnegie and others. In essence, he believed in widening inequalities in society for the sole purpose of placing power in the hands of only the most wealthy and most

    Read More

  • Wealthy or Rich in Andrew Carnegie's Essay, Wealth

    959 Words  | 2 Pages

    Carnegie’s essay contains explanations of three common methods by which wealth is distributed and his own opinions on the effects of each. After reading the entire essay, readers can see his overall appeals to logos; having wealth does not make anyone rich, but using that wealth for the greater good does. He does not force his opinions onto the reader, but is effectively convincing of why his beliefs make sense. Andrew Carnegie’s simple explanations intertwined with small, but powerful appeals to ethos and pathos become incorporated into his overall appeal to logos in his definition of what it means for one to truly be rich.

    Read More

  • The Soviet Government, Gilead of The Handmaid’s Tale and Oceania of 1984

    1636 Words  | 4 Pages

    Though the rewards are pleasing to the ear, the path to obtaining the benefits of communism is a violent one. This strict governing idea was derived from Communist Manifesto, a book written by two German economists, Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, who declare that many problems in society are caused by the unequal distribution of wealth. These two believe that “Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations.” To achieve the goal of happiness and prosperity for all, the lines that distinguish the differences between the rich and poor must be erased. Obviously, the rich will never voluntarily give up their goods or status; therefore the figureheads must force equality among the citizens. Communism places their citizens, whether they be the wealthy or the laborers, into working classes that specify their contribution to the government. With such balanced placement of the people, individuality is impossible for any single person to achieve.

    Read More

  • Market and Freedom by Professor Dwight R. Lee

    385 Words  | 1 Pages

    The author of the article believes that through the social and productive cooperation, the society can reach its wealth and prosperity. The production cooperation has two main elements, freedom and good health. However, the author emphasizes that freedom is more important than good health and wealth as well. He points out that "the sick people can be productive, but without freedom the productive cooperation of the marketplace is impossible." He also clarified that the rich people could not enjoy their wealth without freedom. Moreover, Professor Dwight mentions that there is mutual dependence among the production and freedom. He clarified this idea in two points. First, "Markets requires freedom". The author attacks the centralized government that prevents the freedom and dominates the information flows, which is an important element of the market economy. Second, "freedom requires markets". Professor Lee emphasizes that privatization protects individual freedom. In this context he mentions for an important example that we might experience in everyday life, "the pollution problems." These are real problems in our world today, especially in the over populated cities and countries such as Mexico City and Cairo.

    Read More

  • The Gospel of Wealth, by Andrew Carnegie

    960 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the “Gospel of wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues that it is the duty of the wealthy entrepreneur who has amassed a great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those less fortunate. Greed and selfishness may force some readers to see these arguments as preposterous; however, greed is a key ingredient in successful competition. It forces competitors to perform at a higher level than their peers in hopes of obtaining more money and individual wealth. A capitalist society that allows this wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few might be beneficial to the human race because it could promote competition between companies; it might ensure health care for everyone no matter their social standing, and parks and recreation could be built for the enjoyment of society.

    Read More

  • Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth

    568 Words  | 2 Pages

    Andrew Carnegie believes in a system based on principles and responsibility. The system is Individualism and when everyone strives towards the same goals the system is fair and prosperous. Carnegie’s essay is his attempt to show people a way to reach an accommodation between individualism and fairness. This system can only work if everyone knows and participates in his or her responsibilities. I will discuss Carnegie’s thesis, his arguments and the possible results of his goals.

    Read More

  • The Shift from Traditional Societies to a Market Society

    1020 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...hown to be a fundamental socioeconomic transformation. My paper has shown many aspects of the market society, by using a number of theorists’ concepts. I focused on the characteristics of a market society, as well as why this transformation from traditional society was so significant. I also discussed the changes that have taken place in the workplace and the impact on the workers, which these material conditions became apparent throughout time. Lastly, I explained Weber’s idea of “economic rationality” and the worldview of people in a market society, to show how workers rationalized the work they put into the production and distribution of material goods. Generally, this paper’s purpose was to show how the market society has established itself over time, and how both material and ideological conditions interacted and changed the ways we view market society today.

    Read More

  • How Did Mr Carnegie Solve The Problem Gap Between The Rich And Poor?

    1059 Words  | 3 Pages

    Carnegie ends his essay by saying that to follow his plan regarding wealth would someday solve the problem gap between the rich and poor, and bring “Peace on earth, among men Good-Will” (495). I plan to show my concerns and beliefs for and against his ideas.

    Read More

  • Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations

    3049 Words  | 7 Pages

    The pivotal second chapter of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, "Of the Principle which gives occasion to the Division of Labour," opens with the oft-cited claim that the foundation of modern political economy is the human "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another."1 This formulation plays both an analytical and normative role. It offers an anthropological microfoundation for Smith's understanding of how modern commercial societies function as social organizations, which, in turn, provide a venue for the expression and operation of these human proclivities. Together with the equally famous concept of the invisible hand, this sentence defines the central axis of a new science of political economy designed to come to terms with the emergence of a novel object of investigation: economic production and exchange as a distinct, separate, independent sphere of human action. Moreover, it is this domain, the source of wealth, which had become the main organizational principle of modern societies, displacing the once-ascendant positions of theology, morality, and political philosophy.

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Income Inequality In Society

    801 Words  | 2 Pages

    Individuals differ in many ways, including their commitment, ambition, and ingenuity. In a market-oriented economy, individuals move freely between classes contingent on their ability to satiate the desires of others; thus, an economic hierarchy is created, and those who better satisfy consumers wants will make more money. This income inequality provides a greater ability and incentive to produce wealth. By establishing these clear-cut classes, it becomes apparent these individuals are in fact unequal. By nature, consumers purchase goods from suppliers who outperformed their competitors. In a society based on voluntary trade, a person grows rich by producing goods and getting people to purchase those products over the alternatives available.

    Read More

  • Socialism - The Best Economic System

    1465 Words  | 3 Pages

    Today, more than ever, there is great debate over politics and which economic system works the best. How needs and wants should be allocated, and who should do the allocating, is one of the most highly debated topics in our current society. Be it communist dictators defending a command economy, free market conservatives defending a market economy, or European liberals defending socialism, everyone has an opinion. While all systems have flaws and merits, it must be decided which system is the best for all citizens. When looking at both the financial well being of all citizens, it is clear that market economies fall short on ensuring that the basic needs of all citizens are met. If one looks at liberty and individual freedom, it is evident that command economies tend to oppress their citizens. Therefore, socialism, which allows for basic needs to be met and personal freedoms to be upheld, is the best economic system for all of a country’s citizens.

    Read More

  • The Distribution of Income and Wealth

    767 Words  | 2 Pages

    Socialists have their own distinctive ideas on how society should distribute wealth and income. Kai Nielson defends the idea that it is the duty of society to have equality of need fulfillment. Nielson believes that everyone has the right to an equal share of the wealth in the world and states that this should be applied globally. He goes on to say that if only a...

    Read More

  • Free Market: Utopia Destined For Dystopia

    599 Words  | 2 Pages

    The myth of the free market suggests that markets are a self-regulating and self-sustaining system and any intervention will disrupt their natural flow. Polanyi, Marx, and Weber debunk the myth of the free market by indicating markets only function when outside forces, such as government, control and organize them. Polanyi focuses on the human and environmental costs of production, and borrows ideas from Marx and Weber to demonstrate that free market capitalism is a “stark utopia” and while unachievable, causes instability leading to societal crises requiring intervention.

    Read More

  • Factors That Contribute To Economic Growth

    1280 Words  | 3 Pages

    In order for any country to survive in comparison to another developed country they must be able to grow and sustain a healthy and flourishing economy. This paper is designed to give a detailed insight of economic growth and the sectors that influence economic growth. Economic growth in a country is essential to the reduction of poverty, without such reduction; poverty would continue to increase therefore economic growth is inevitable. Through economic growth, it is also an aid in the reduction of the unemployment rate and it also helps to reduce the budget deficit of the government. Economic growth can also encourage better living standards for all it is citizens because with economic growth there are improvements in the public sectors, educational and healthcare facilities. Through economic growth social spending can also be increased without an increase of taxes.

    Read More

  • paper

    1240 Words  | 3 Pages

    The term 'sociolinguistics' has been first used in 1939 by T.C. Hodson in relation to language study in India (Le Page 1997: 19)

    Read More

More about Paper

Open Document