| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "LENIN MARX CAPITALISM": |
|
|
Lenin and Marx on Capitalism, 2004.
A comparison of the theories of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin on capitalism.
3,599 words (approx. 14.4 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 69.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper begins by defining capitalism and explains how Karl Marx's theories related to it. It then discusses Lenin's and Marx's criticism of capitalism and explains why they considered this economic system to be inferior to communism.
From the Paper
"According to the American Heritage Dictionary, capitalism is ?An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.? (American Heritage Dictionary, 2003) Although capitalism has been attacked, mischaracterized, and otherwise not understood by communist and socialist theorists throughout the world, the practice has endured the 400 plus year experiment in this country, and has proved itself to be the greatest stabilizing force in an economy which seeks to treat all its people fairly. By combining capitalism with the practice of allowing all people equal opportunity to engage in capitalist enterprise, a ?market economy? has evolved. In a free market economy, the forces that drive the national economy neither rest in the hands of a few wealthy landowners, nor in the hands of a wealthy bourgeois class, nor in the hands of the government. The power which turns the economic engines rests in the hands of the peoples, and in turn can benefit every person."
| |
|
Maoist-Leninism and Capitalism in China, 2008.
An analysis of the fundamental threat that is posed to the continuing stable development of China from the convergence of Maoist-Leninism and capitalism in contemporary China.
1,853 words (approx. 7.4 pages), 6 sources, MLA, £ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the convergence of Maoist-Leninism and capitalism in contemporary China. It focuses on "ideology" as an element of change in China today in order to highlight the nature of the challenge facing a country. The paper looks at China's surging economy and geriatric political structure that is supported by a decayed ideology and suggests that there is a fundamental threat that is posed to the continuing stable development of China from these contradictory ideologies.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
The Problem Facing China
What is "Ideology"?
The Connection Between Capitalism and Democracy
An Unstable Marriage: Capitalism and Communism
An Uncertain Future
From the Paper
"From this perspective, we can understand the fundamental threat that is posed to the continuing stable development of China from these contradictory ideologies. Capitalism seems to necessarily stimulate independent political thinking, which is highly repellant to the Communist Party which sought independent thinking only in terms of market management and technological innovation. The Communist Party thus bases its continuing monopoly on political power upon an ideology that no one in China truly believe in anymore. This co-existence of contradictory ideologies may continue for years to come, but obviously cannot be sustained in the long term. It is this fact that gives rise to the pessimism of many observers regarding the future of China."
| |
|
The Merits of Capitalism, 2005.
Examines the views of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Fredrick Hayek, and John Maynard Keynes on capitalism.
2,950 words (approx. 11.8 pages), 7 sources, MLA, £ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Marx, Lenin, Hayek, and Keyunes are the primary political-economic theorists of the modern period. Each of them has forwarded his response to capitalism, either supporting, rejecting, or qualifying it. On the basis of these responses, one may easily deduce where each of the four stand on the question of capitalism's merits and its capacity to harness economic energies and productive resources and to protect individual liberties and political freedoms. This paper provides a detailed analysis of the theories of each of these four thinkers.
From the Paper
"From the above, it may be safely deduced that Keynes qualified his acceptance of capitalism and its capacity to protect individual freedoms. According to the argument he presents, capitalism is most definitely the preferred economic system and has the greater capacity to harness economic resources and productive energies. However, capitalism, as with all economic systems, was susceptible to crisis."
| |
|
Imperialism Is the Highest Form of Capitalism, 2002.
A discussion of the concepts of imperialism and capitalism through a review of Joseph Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness" and Anna Leonowens's "The English Governess at the Court of Siam".
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, £ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This undergraduate paper takes the position that imperialism is the highest expression of capitalism. It supports Lenin's argument to that effect. It draws upon Joseph Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness" and Anna Leonowens's "The English Governess at the Court of Siam", to demonstrate the impact and method of imperialism. It concludes that imperialism is indeed the ultimate expression of thoughtless greed for greed's sake.
| |
|
Karl Marx, 2002.
This paper discusses the life of Karl Marx and his influence on the Russian Revolution
2,075 words (approx. 8.3 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Karl Marx's character came from his experiences as a child. As a convert, a lofty Christian idealism paved his way into philosophical study, but the Prussian authorities' unwarranted suspicion of his father, who was a lawyer, a constitutionalist, a democrat, and a Jew, led young Karl to consider, with discontent, the structure of government. The author points out that, although Marx studied under Hegel, the greatest influence in his life was his longtime friend, Friedrich Engels, who introduced Marx to many of the works of influential economists of the time, which would help him shape his economic and human philosophy. The paper relates that Vladimir Lenin extended Marxism and made it more comprehensible for the masses, augmenting it into Marxist-Leninism. Without Karl Marx, there probably would never have been a Russian Revolution.
From the Paper
"In 1864, the International Working Men's Association (IWMA) was founded. It gave Marx the needed conduit for his revolutionary cause. Marx actually drew up the rules for the group, clearly advocating the gradual gain of power through parliamentary assemblies. This became the best means for freeing the proletariat in industrially advanced countries like Britain. With his strong opinions and stronger understanding of politics, Marx eventually became a member of the IWMA's general committee. This position gave him the clout he needed to present his ideas: such as strong support of the Paris Commune. This bold action drew the attention of all, especially the frightened French bourgeoisie. Unfortunately his position in the IWMA was the height of his official political career. He became under attack from the working class, who were unsupportive of his extreme measures, and others disliking any kind of authority. With Marx's political defeat, the IWMA lost all of its effectiveness and eventually dissolved into nonexistence. Although Marx no longer had any official place in politics, working-class leaders from Germany, France, and Britain continued to consult him about their problems."
| |
|
Lenin's "State and Revolution", 2001.
This is a book review of "State and Revolution" by Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin. It looks at Lenin's reason for writing it, as well as the underlying points in his argument.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 1 source, £ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is a book review on Lenin's "State and Revolution". It emphasizes Lenin's stance on a violent revolution, while using key phrases to portray this. The author shows Lenin's strong possession of Marx and Engel's beliefs and how he used them against other revolutionaries of his time.
From the Paper
"Lenin?s work in ?State and Revolution? can be debated as historically significant or as a propaganda masterpiece. In many ways, it is a recognition to both of the arguments made. His debate of the Marxist ideals, and many times biased anti-thesis of others debate, is able to portray many sides to the beliefs of Marx and Engels. As a propaganda tool, its knowledge of the actual Marxist information is impeccable and could be credited with sparking one of the most researched revolutions of the twentieth century. The fact that the meaning behind Lenin?s text is still being debated is credit enough to the genius that went behind it, no matter what his original message was intended to be."
| |
|
Differing Views Of Human Nature according to Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, 1990.
Compares conceptions of human nature as proposed by Marx and Freud. Marx's conception is based on economic interactions and the relationship of humans to labor, Freud's conception is rooted in theoretical constructs of the mind producing observable beh
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, £ 21.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" Differing views of human nature are found in the theories of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. The two writers address diverse aspects of human life, with Marx centering on the economic and political and Freud on the inner life of the mind and the ways in which that manifests itself in human behavior. The two men have as their starting point a conception of human nature which shows why human beings behave as they do, and for both men the reasons for human behavior are hidden from view, hidden from the understanding of the majority of people responding to them. For Marx, the hidden force is economic and involves the relationship of the human being to labor, while for Freud the hidden force is found in theoretical constructs of the mind which govern different aspects of thought and behavior and whose interaction produces the behavior we can see..."
| |
|
Marx the Individual, 2007.
This paper discusses Karl Marx and the subject of individualism.
2,064 words (approx. 8.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that Karl Marx is best known for his incisive analysis and acidic criticisms of capitalism, including the ideology that reinforces and legitimizes it. The writer points out that Marx is especially critical of modern theories of individualism. The writer discusses Marx's critique of individualism as developed and demonstrated in the political writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two of the greatest champions of individualism. The writer explains that Karl Marx is known for his "Communist Manifesto" and "Capital", writings that would change the course of history. The writer concludes that ultimately, Marx's entire way of thinking is a critique of the individualistic ideas of Hobbes and Locke.
From the Paper
"Most of Marx writings suggest an understanding of the world that is not in terms of individualism as Hobbes and Locke, despite their differences, have championed. This ties into Marx's ideas that eventually the classes that are dominated by the capitalists will come to rise and overthrow the system and create a much more communal society- communism. However, before this can become a reality Marx has to define the world in different terms than Hobbes and Locke. People have common interests and unite behind those interests to Marx; those interests are being exploited as workers or being the capitalist doing the exploiting trying to protect and further one's interests. Therefore people are united by a common interest one way or the other. There is no individual freedom as the system, whether feudal or capitalist, tells people what they should do and how they should further themselves. The natural state of freedom is not existence to Marx. Furthermore, Marx does not believe that people are necessarily at a state of war, but rather are acting rationally in a system dominated by classes and the need to accumulate resources. Ultimately, Marx's entire way of thinking is a critique of the individualistic ideas of Hobbes and Locke."
| |
|
Emile Durkheim's and Karl Marx's Views of Religion, 2006.
This paper shall examine the views of both Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx as they pertain to religion.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 6 sources, £ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Religion plays a key role in the works of both Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx and a close look at their respective views on religion are therefore very important. With that in mind, this paper argues that, while both Durkheim and Marx are not strong advocates of religion, Marx is especially sharp in his denunciation. In particular, whereas Durkheim does see some salutary effects associated with religious practice - such as the promotion of social solidarity as well as a collective moral code - Marx views religion as being basically an appendage of the capitalist establishment. More than that, Marx's vision of both religion and of capitalism is so unflattering that he compares the former to an ancient Near Eastern religious sect which favored the sacrifice of children to an obscure deity.
| |
|
Weber and Marx, 2006.
A discussion as to whether Max Weber entirely negated Karl Marx's conception of class inequality.
980 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, £ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Max Weber disagreed with Karl Marx's historical and materialist analysis of the dialectical nature or cyclical quality of class conflict within every society. The paper further points out that Weber's more subtle understanding of the concept of 'class', which included dimensions beyond purely economic interests, made class revolution more difficult in his analysis. The author points out that Weber did not negate all of Marx's analysis; rather, he added fundamental components to Marx's analysis of class conflict that disturbed Marx's notion that economics was the root of all human turmoil and strife. The paper stresses that Weber's writings underline the unpredictable importance of ideological and cultural power, an aspect of human life largely ignored in Marx or dismissed as a mere, self-serving tool of the economic elite.
From the Paper
"For example, someone like Bill Gates might rank high in wealth and social power and prestige (through philanthropy) but low in direct, political power (as Gates' corporation has been the subject of anti-trust lawsuits by the government) A public intellectual like Cornell West may not have enough money to really use his money to exert considerable influence upon society, but have intellectual prestige and influence with politicians and media figures. A news anchor like Katie Couric might have more political and social prestige than a wealthy billionaire investor like Warren Buffet."
| |
|
Hegel and Marx, 2008.
This paper compares the philosophies of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx.
2,445 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Karl Marx is considered in modern philosophy to be a left-wing Hegelian. The author points out that Marx disagreed with Hegel regarding the idea that the driving force in history is centered on man's intellectual prowess or spiritual need for connectivity. The paper relates that the fundamental disagreement between Hegel and Marx focused on God and property. The author underscores that Hegel believed God was at the center of theology but Marx totally replaced God's presence in society with the concept of the power of private property. The paper concludes that to say that Hegel did not believe in private property and Marx did is erroneous because Hegel also believed that private property was a means to satisfy man's needs: They simply differed on the use of such property.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Marxism
Hegel's Theory
Agreements and Disagreements
Present Day Scholars
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Reality is a contradictory and changeable force. It is with dialectical logic reality is understood for its dynamics involving what is going to be developed. Neither philosopher is a believer of Machiavelli whose writings centered around the way in which history teaches. Hegel and Marx believed that history does not really recur since the motivation of man changes. Human beings are a species that permits higher levels of consciousness and actualization. It is in this school of thought that history is believed to hold progress. Conflict of any kind is a part of progress."
| |
|
Marx and Engels Today, 2007.
This paper questions whether Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would have been influenced by Albert Hirschman and Robert Putnam.
1,936 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 3 sources, APA, £ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper questions whether Marx and Engel's theories of economic and social equality would be as readily accepted today as they were in the authors' day. The writer analyzes Marx and Engel's theories, with particular emphasis on "The Communist Manifesto." This is compared and contrasted to Robert Putnam's social capital perspective. The author feels that if Marx and Engels had read Putnam's ideas they might have been inspired by some of the benefits of capitalism, possibly altering their manifesto to include certain elements of democracy. The paper also examines the ideas expressed in Albert Hirschman's "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty." The author also believes Hirschman's philosophy would have impacted Marx and Engels as well. The author concludes that if Marx and Engels had lived to see recent history, their vision of a new, just society based on economic plenty shared by all would have certainly changed.
Outline:
About the Communist Manifesto
Putnam's Notion of Social Capital
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
Conclusion
Bibliography
From the Paper
"It makes sense that if Marx and Engels were alive in today's society, they would have much different trains of thought. Given their philosophical natures, they would likely be influenced by many of today's contemporary thought leaders, such as Albert Hirschman, author of "Exit Voice and Loyalty", and Robert Putnam, author of "Democracies in Flux". This paper aims to provide a background on the ideas of "The Communist Manifesto" and offer some insight on what Marx and Engels may have changed based on reading these two contemporary works. "
| |
|
Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto, 2000.
A look at the backdrop of the nineteenth century which bred Marx's theories, the vision of Marx and the way his ideas were applied.
1,515 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 2 sources, £ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Karl Marx, born in Germany in 1818, had tremendous influence throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The communist and socialist ideologies, the communist revolution in Russia, and the spread of communism throughout the world were all a result of Marx's social and economic theories. These theories were developed as a result of the situation of the working class in Europe during Marx's lifetime. .."
| |
|
Smith and Marx, 2001.
This paper compares and contrasts the views of economist Adam Smith and Karl Marx regarding the modern economy.
2,830 words (approx. 11.3 pages), 14 sources, APA, £ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is a detailed review of the life and principal works of Adam Smith, including "The Wealth of Nations", with an analysis of how his ideas on laissez-faire economics contrasted with those ideas of Karl Marx, and how his and Marx's ideas apply today.
From the Paper
"Adam Smith was one of the most influential people in the lives of each of living at the beginning of the 21st century, although ? ironically ? we tend not to see the extent of his influence simply because it is so vast. It is like the air around us, something essential to our environment but impossible to see. But while oxygen supports us as biological entities, the ideas Smith (along with other key social critics and thinkers like Karl Marx) in their different ways support us as social animals.
This paper explores the contributions of Adam Smith to our understanding of the human condition, looking briefly at the personal backgrounds of this political philosopher before examining his ideas about social justice, the economy and the ways in which governments should and should not intervene in the economies of their states."
|
|
|
