Blog 6

Communism Solves All

To most of you the above statement sounds outrageous, but to Karl Marx he truly believed this. He believed in two social classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The role of the bourgeoisie in society was to innovate and make society better. This class was the middle class; their wealth was based off of their property value. Bourgeoisie’s were necessary for improving the country’s portrayal of itself to other nations. By passing on industrialization ideas it made that particular nation seem more prosperous. The proletariat on the other hand was the poor people whose main source of income was labor. They were continuously living in poverty.  

In Marx’s eyes communism would alleviate the proletariat class from poverty. By having the government own all land the bourgeoisie class wouldn’t exist because they wouldn’t have anything to base their wealth off of. 

On the topic of alleviating poverty, I do and don’t believe that donating will solve the rich and poor problem. If rich people are donating to the poor, there still is going to be rich and poor people. The poor need to learn to work and fend for themselves instead of just always taking from the rich. I think Carnegie’s example of dispensing the wealthy’s money while they are alive is a good plan because at least they will be able to see what is being done with their money yet at the same time I don’t think the rich people should have to be responsible for the poor. 

Democracy... Good or Bad?

Democracy… Good or Bad?

       Aristotle defines a democracy as “the rule of the poor and the rule of the majority.” He doesn’t particularly support this type of government because it could potentially be dangerous. If the majority is poor and uneducated then they would be the ones in charge by definition of a democracy. While having these lesser people as rulers the nation is set for turmoil. 

 

         This picture above is a huge component of United States history; it is the signing of the constitution. I believe that if Aristotle saw this he would not consider America a democracy. His comments about the painting may include the following: only upper class, only educated men, small number. All of these observations would push Aristotle to believe this was an oligarchy.  

         The painting possesses many elements of colonial times. For example, the furniture and the chandelier are very relevant to the time along with the color scheme. The classic dark greens, blues and reds give the image a serious and sophisticated look. The windows are open letting in sun on Washington and the American flags. The room is filled with around 40 delegates who signed the constitution while missing about 16 others who had not.  

         Those who had signed the constitution mostly consist of senators, governors or house of representative members. All of these men were well educated and knew what they were talking about when it came to politics. This group did not represent all members of society very well although some did come small rural areas.  

         The democracy that we see in America today is not very comparable to what Aristotle called a democracy. He would have expected to see many poor people in charge of the nation let alone some wealthy knowledgeable white men. I think that Americans call ourselves democrats because we do get to help chose who leads us and we do get some say in how the nation is ran. We would not be true democrats in Aristotle’s eyes however because the majority does not rule. 

Breaking the Laws for Justice

Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter

From Birmingham Jail

         “It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s with power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.” -MLK This quote is the key idea behind Martin Luther King Jr.’s thoughts about justice, when it is being denied action must be taken.  

         Injustice within the black community during this time was very prominent and Martin Luther King Jr. was not going to stand for it. He believed like Thoreau that sometimes it was necessary for direct action to take place. If the government is not treating its people with respect, then their laws are not to be followed but instead gone against and bettered. Both of these men are strongly against slavery because it diminishes that particular individual’s basic rights. Suffering for their beliefs was always an option for both MLK and Thoreau, no changes would be made without suffering.

          “The Defense of Injustice,” is an essay in which there are two characters if you will who argue the necessity of justice. One believes that full justice is never possible while the other speaks how justice is needed and a nation cannot function as well without justice. While reading this essay, people will be enlightened to consider just an unjust laws and the morality that goes along with them.

Civil Disobedience and War

Civil Disobedience and the Mexican War

Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” is a work that draws a corrupt government to the surface, well at least that is what Thoreau intended. During a time when slavery was very heavily depended on Thoreau wrote this piece after spending a night in jail. He comments on what he believes the government's duties and values should be and how they should treat the individual. One moral obligation that Thoreau believes the government should follow is to outlaw slavery. All individuals should be treated with dignity and respect by the government. “That government is best which governs least,” this quote demonstrates Thoreau’s thought that less government is best. The whole laissez faire idea plays a huge role in Thoreau's thoughts. His idea on government relates to ours today because we clearly are against slavery and for the equal treatment of all men. Also we try to keep the government out of our problems as much as possible.

When it comes to the Mexican War Thoreau was strongly against it, he believed that our government was being overly aggressive. President Polk believed that it was the United State’s “manifest destiny” to acquire as much land as we could. He engaged in war when there was disagreement between Mexico and the U.S. over who owned which land. I think for sure Thoreau had reasons to question the aggressiveness of the American government at the time, we participated in war to try an take land from a different country. I can see why Thoreau would believe the government was being overly aggressive.  

Mexican War