Free Essays on Marx

Mid-Term The basis for Karl Marx’s development of socialist thought came from mainly from the conflict between classes. Marx had a strong belief that the economic system to which an area conformed to had total control over every part of life. Marx was a big opponent of capitalism because he believed that capitalism led to conflict between classes, that is the capitalists or bourgeoisie and the proletariat or working class. In Marxist thought, the word class does not refer to an attribute or characteristic of a person or a group; rather it denotes position in relation to others (Siegel 257). To be a member of the capitalist class did not necessarily denote a particular amount of wealth or prestige but to be a member of the capitalist class was to have the power to exploit others economically, socially and politically (Siegel 257). It is within this belief that Marx developed his theory of the relationship between crime and class and this also the basis of the conflict theory. Marx’s belief that class is equal to the power to exploit is the basis for his theory that there is a relationship between economic structure and crime rates. Marx’s theory states that the capitalist means of production creates a class conflict. This is very similar to the conflict criminological theory which states that crime is a function of class conflict. This theory uses the fact that law is defined by those who hold the political and social power. The conflict theory and Marx’s theory differ slightly in that the conflict theory just states that the reason the class conflict accounts for the differences in crime rates while Marx goes further to blame economic structure for differences in crime rates among the classes and Marx also says that crime is merely a rebellion of the lower class to the oppression and exploitation by the bourgeoisie or upper class. Radical Marxists believe that there is an evident causal relationship between capitali... Free Essays on Marx Free Essays on Marx I. Introduction II. Marxism A. Definition & Explanation B. Example: Economic Evolution III. Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) A. Definition & Explanation B. Example: The Parliament versus the Crown IV. Institutional Theory A. Definition & Explanation B. Example: Social Change V. Conclusion Human relationships have always been dynamic. Change and adaptability have gone hand in hand with the passage of time for human society. Systems have been developed to regulate, direct and control the resources of this society. The systems are referred to as governments and the resources as the populace or inhabitants and forces of production. A government must be dynamic in its nature reflecting the change in society. At times these systems have resisted the necessity to adapt with its components (Society) creating a deficit between the system and those it regulates. As the deficits develop, they cause instability, and could lead to revolution.1 Theories have been developed to explain the systemic phenomenon called revolution. This paper will discuss three modern theories and apply them to the English revolution of 1640. The first theory, developed by Carl Marx (Marxism), will address the economic evolution in English society. This theory will emphasize and explain how the shift from a feudal/mercantile system to capitalism affected English society. The second, called the Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) developed by Charles Tilly, will explain how the English organizations (the Crown and the Parliament) effectively obtained, amassed and managed resources. Samuel Huntington's, "Institutional Theory", will argue that the existing government at that time was unable to incorporate the demands and personnel that the socio-economic changes created. ... Free Essays on Marx Marx interpreted the Protestant Reformation as an aspect of the struggle of the rising bourgeoisie against the feudal ruling class. He saw the Protestant ethic as an ideological weapon used by capitalists to convince workers that hard work and obedience to their bosses was demanded by god. The Protestant ethic was meant to control the behavior of the working class, not the behavior of the bourgeoisie, who never led the ascetic life Weber described. Thus, British historian E. P. Thompson (1963) verified Marx's analysis by describing the "ideological terror" unleashed by capitalists against workers during the industrial revolution in England. U.S. historian Gabriel Kolko (1961), showed that Benjamin Franklin, portrayed by Weber as an ideal typical embodiment of the spirit of capitalism, was no ascetic; he was fond of food, drink, and mistresses. Marx and Weber thus analyzed the role of ideas and the nature of capitalism very differently. Marx was a dialectical materialist who insisted that ideologies arise out of material conditions and serve the interests of contending social classes. Weber was an idealist who insisted that ideologies have an independent or autonomous existence, and that there may be an "elective affinity" between ideologies and class interests. Marx said that early capitalists got their wealth through genocide and slavery, while Weber says that they got their wealth through ascetic living and rational organization of production. Marx and Weber had very different views of how capitalists extract profits and of how European hegemony was established. Marx said that profits come from exploitation; Weber said that profits are derived from rational organization. Marx said that European global hegemony resulted from military conquest and economic plunder. Weber said that European global hegemony resulted from the unique cultural values of Western Civilization. Mar... Free Essays on Marx Mid-Term The basis for Karl Marx’s development of socialist thought came from mainly from the conflict between classes. Marx had a strong belief that the economic system to which an area conformed to had total control over every part of life. Marx was a big opponent of capitalism because he believed that capitalism led to conflict between classes, that is the capitalists or bourgeoisie and the proletariat or working class. In Marxist thought, the word class does not refer to an attribute or characteristic of a person or a group; rather it denotes position in relation to others (Siegel 257). To be a member of the capitalist class did not necessarily denote a particular amount of wealth or prestige but to be a member of the capitalist class was to have the power to exploit others economically, socially and politically (Siegel 257). It is within this belief that Marx developed his theory of the relationship between crime and class and this also the basis of the conflict theory. Marx’s belief that class is equal to the power to exploit is the basis for his theory that there is a relationship between economic structure and crime rates. Marx’s theory states that the capitalist means of production creates a class conflict. This is very similar to the conflict criminological theory which states that crime is a function of class conflict. This theory uses the fact that law is defined by those who hold the political and social power. The conflict theory and Marx’s theory differ slightly in that the conflict theory just states that the reason the class conflict accounts for the differences in crime rates while Marx goes further to blame economic structure for differences in crime rates among the classes and Marx also says that crime is merely a rebellion of the lower class to the oppression and exploitation by the bourgeoisie or upper class. Radical Marxists believe that there is an evident causal relationship between capitali...