Abstract
This paper explains how Joseph Stalin used his understanding of the Marxist dialectic to better understand what good can come of any given society. It shows that Stalin manipulated the dialectic only because he knew it needed to be modernized to work properly in a more modern society, a Communist society. Stalin's movements in education and the labor force were truly remarkable and positively changed the face of Communism as the world knew it.

From the Paper
'Manya Gordon viewed the Stalin Revolution and the five year plan as a complete change in the position of labor. "Stalin made a point of making all labor and trade union commonplace and merging the entire Soviet labor force into one government operated establishment. In doing this, Stalin forced all government personnel in opposition to his plan to resign and filled their positions with his own followers who, in turn, helped induce the interests of the workers in the five year plan."5 In the opinion of Gordon, to a non Communist, the five year plan meant the complete betrayal of the workers interests for the sake of building a new, state owned industry. In relation to this, Stalin declared, "the trade unions are called upon to play a decisive role in the task of building social industry by stimulating labor productivity."6 Hence, the trade unions were compelled to drive the workers, to organize shock brigades, and to bring discipline to those who are lacking in production. In short, "the trade unions are a "whip" over the workers."7 Instead of defending the interests of the workers, the labor organizations were obliged to disperse Stalin's "brand" of Marxism which was actually very different from Lenin's Marxist policy. "Lenin insisted that all trade unions must be non political, while Stalin insinuated that all non political aspects of the unions must be eliminated. Eventually the people accepted Stalin's policy even though it depicted the laborers as a lower status of beings, much the same as earlier Russian capitalists."8 This fact would also mean that Stalin was not, in fact, a Marxist as he claimed to be, because a Marxist would be more concerned with the non political aspect of a trade union. For example, "Stalin planned for industrial workers to increase production by twenty eight percent, but only give the workers a six percent pay raise."9 Thus, Stalin was more concerned with industrialization than with the proletariat, hardly a display of Marxist theory. Another historian concerned with Stalinism and its effects was Raymond Bauer."

Tags:communism, economy, lenin, marxism, plan, socialism, totalitarianism

Abstract
By first examining religious phenomena, Durkheim's emphasis on the individual aspects of religion is outlined in this paper. This follows an examination of the typical functionalist ideal: That in order to understand a society, you must first examine its parts. It explains that Marx does not examine the facets of society, but this is because Marx is a materialist. Thus, Marx focused on the material foundation of religion, this being its economic origins. The paper then examines how Durkheim and Marx are very similar, as they both believe religion was created by society. It shows that, despite the differences in their respective paradigms, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim's sociologies of religion are very similar.

From the Paper
"There are many different paradigms within the study of sociology; each leads to a different conclusion regarding society. Two of these paradigms are evident in the work of Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx. Durkheim was a functionalist, Marx, a realist. The functionalist perspective can be defined as "The doctrine that the function of an object should determine its design and materials"(Functionalist, 2002). Thus, in order to understand society, one must examine its parts and their functions. Materialists, on the other hand believe "that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena" (Materialist, 2002). These opposing theories are evident in much of their respective works, as Durkheim's description is more detailed and functional, and Marx's is more purposeful. However, with regards to the sociology of religion, these differences are only skin-deep. Contrary to common belief, their underlying arguments are actually quite similar as will be proved subsequently."

Tags:durkheim, marx, religion

Abstract
A position paper comparing the views of Adam Smith and Karl Marx and how each of them influenced the Industrial Revolution. Discusses their ideas of a utopian society. Paper argues for the position of Karl Marx.

From the Paper
"The Industrial Revolution had many advantages. Communication, transportation, and production all increased greatly in speed and reliability. Mass production lowered the cost of goods for consumers significantly. However, there were many drawbacks as well. Poor, often dangerous working conditions and long hours in the factories made life miserable for workers. Karl Marx and Adam Smith were two men of the time with two very different views of the way that society should be run. Adam Smith thought that society should be run by the individuals with power in business. Entrepreneurs and investors prospered greatly in his system, however, workers suffered greatly. Smith ignored the problems of poor working conditions, pollution, and overcrowding in the cities. Karl Marx believed that the government should have control of all means of production. Although personal creativity was stripped from the production lines, the entire society as a whole prospered together. All workers were treated equally, no one person could rise above another. The goods produced were all of good quality, at an affordable price. Overall, the Marx system created a classless society. There were no wealthy and poor, no powerful and weak. I agree with the Marxist view of the Industrial Revolution. It was the workers who made the Industrial Revolution possible, and they deserve to be treated better than they had been in the beginning."

Tags:class, marxist

Abstract
This paper examines the inherent flaws in Marx's Final Revolution that explain why it never happened. The author states that Marx failed to consider as significant factors racial and religious differences and strife and the "managerial class". The paper asserts that that Marx's theory of labor exploitation as the means of profit is incorrect.

From the Paper
"When examined, this theory seems to be correct in nature. Why then has it not happened? All the conditions appear to have been fulfilled. In modern society the majority of the population is concentrated together in large urban centers. The present advances in communications and mass media, ensure that few people remain ignorant for any length of time. The answer seems to lie in two small flaws which separately would probable not be enough to cripple this theory, but together do."

Tags:flaws, racial, religious, differences, strife, managerial, class, labor, exploitation, profit

Abstract
This paper reviews Friedrich Engels' book "The Condition of the Working Class in England", which explores the social issues that arose out of the creation of the proletariat by the industrial movement and which predicts that oppression by the bourgeoisie will eventually lead it to the inevitable "Revolution". It examines the social problems that Friedrich Engels identifies namely the deplorable living and working conditions in the 'Great Towns', the influx of Irish immigrants, the particular difficulties of the factory system and the mining and agricultural. It also looks at the proletariat, the Cottage system, the Truck system and the New Poor Law together with the attitude of the bourgeoisie toward the proletariat's suffering. It evaluates some of the solutions that Engels provides in trying to avoid the inevitable 'Revolution'.

From the Paper
"This unhappy condition was further worsened by the influx of Irish immigrants who "had nothing to lose at home, and much to gain in England" (Engels, 101). In the hope of finding employment and making money, many Irishmen made their way to the English towns, bringing with them their crude habits and simplistic lifestyle. The Irish settlers did not need much to sustain their livelihood, and as such, required and were willing to work for less wages than any others. They became a strong competition for employment, and in branches of the industry where they competed with the English, wages were forced down further and further. Also, as they were accustomed to lack of cleanliness, the filth of their living quarters did not bother them, and to the ever-present garbage and dirt-heaps they added their own."

Tags:bourgeoisie, proletariat, industrial

Abstract
This critical paper illustrates in a number of ways that dialectical materialism is arrived at through a process of scientific inquiry. The author gives a distinct definition of the meaning of what it is that warrants the description of a theory as "scientific". Next, she applies this definition to Marx's historical theory and shows how it corresponds to this description. Finally, she reflects and responds to some of the ways that Marx's critics are in disagreement with her argument that dialectical materialism is, in fact, a study of history that is based on scientific theory and objectivity.

From the Paper
"As a student of history, I believe that there is validity in Marx's "scientific" postulation. The study of history is very important, I believe, in discovering what lies ahead of us and how best to avoid repeating past mistakes. Although there are no "concretes" in history, and at this point, I diverge from Marxian historiography, there must be an objective way of looking at the past in order to theorize about how we have arrived at our current situations. Although I do not believe Marx's theory of history to be entirely correct, I do argue that this theory is arrived at objectively and scientifically."

Tags:dialectical, engels, history, marx, materialism, philosophy

Abstract
This paper provides a good overview of the contributions of both Smith and Marx, as well as a good examination of both systems, while coming to the conclusion that the market system is indeed, preferable to laissez-faire.

Tags:faire, laissez, market, system, profit

Abstract
This paper attempts to introduce Karl Marx's view of capitalist exploitation, which states that the bourgeoisie is the ruling class in capitalist society, which owns the means of production, while the proletariat is the working class, whose sole commodity is his labor power. It examines the issue of how division of labor further increases the exploitation of the worker and how the exploitation of the worker is not confined simply to the bourgeois capitalist who employs him, but also to all the other capitalists who form the society around the proletarian worker.

From the Paper
"In order to keep the worker subjugated, the bourgeois capitalist only provides the laborer with the basic requirements for continued existence. In evidence of this, Marx claims, "The costs occasioned by the worker are limited almost entirely to the subsistence which he requires for his maintenance and reproduction of his race. The price of a commodity, and therefore of labor, is equal to its costs of production." By giving the worker the minimum one can possible allow him, only barely allowing enough for the necessities, the proletarian can never acquire any property of his own, and thus never has any hopes of gaining the means of production for himself."

Tags:bourgeois, capitalism, exploitation, proletariat

Abstract
This paper discusses globalization and uses three theoretical perspectives from which the phenomena can best be described - institutionalism, pluralism and Marxism. It examines each of these theories in depth in order to establish which offers the best explanation for globalization. The paper concludes that no theory is adequate to explain the effect of globalization, but that pluralism offers the best chance to ward off some of the negative affects of globalization.

From the Paper
"Perhaps the most meaningful explanation of these diverging interpretations of what globalization is and how it should be defined is the result of the varying theoretical stances of academics on how best to conceptualize a nation-state. Specifically, the nature of the challenge that that globalization will have on a state, and the correct prescription for action, depends on what theoretical interpretation of the state to which one subscribes. Institutionalists note the proliferation of private and often oligopolistic networks of trans-governmental and non-governmental organizations, and the issues which they both address, and fail to address. For Marxists, globalization is a process of "hollowing-out" the state and enhancing the power of trans-national capital. Finally, the closed and intergovernmental model of trans-national relations appears to frustrate attempts at plural influence, removing many issues for the preview of domestic democratic governance. It will be suggested that no theory is sufficient to solve the problems associated with globalization, but that pluralism offers the best prospect for incremental progress."

Tags:governance, national, democratic

Abstract
In this essay the author goes head to head with Karl Marx's view of alienation. The contradictions which Marx makes on alienation of labor are pointed out and used to figure out what conception of the human essence Marx uses to rest his theory on. The author points out flaws in Marx's essay and offers alternative solutions.

From the Paper
"Karl Marks who lived between 1818 and 1883 wrote the Estrange Labor manuscript in 1844. Being only 26 years of age he challenges the works of the great philosopher Hegel. In his manuscript he considered himself to be a young Hegelian philosopher. Marx explains his beliefs on what he believes to be the key elements of estranged labor, mainly alienation from nature, alienation from product of labor, alienation from the activity of labor, and alienation from species. Hegel believed that trough the use of labor to create objects we could satisfy our bodily needs. He believed that our reason allowed for criticism to improve upon the objects, which allowed the mind to evolve toward pure reason and ultimately freedom. Hegel also noted that freedom was the essence of freedom. Marx does not completely agree with Hegel because he felt his theory was too abstract and ignored important concepts of social organization for production. Marx believes that philosophy in the past had mystified the real contradictions of human existence."

Tags:estranged, labour, metaphsics, society