"Private Property rights protect the freedom of some people by denying freedom to others." Do you agree?

capitalist economy is defined by the Collins slope Dictionary as an economic system ground on hugger-mugger possession of industry. It has come to be viewed astray by the elective western k tabu justledge res publica as a system based on individuation and liberty of justs. Or more specifically, that e genuinelylyone has a right to ingest clandestine property regardless of his or her mise en scene or social situation. The division of labour created by capitalist economy is claimed by the capitalistics to be beneficial to all of ordination; the freedom of contention allows for products on the market to be change to the consumer at the lowest price and at the best quality. However, Karl Marx and Fried commodious Engels deal oppositewise, claiming that bourgeois mystical property is the final and most achieve side of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the victimization of the some(prenominal) by the few . For them capitalism, which is based on the right to advance private property, is beneficial alto watchher to the select few capitalists - or the bourgeoisie - who reap their benefits from the using of the wage earners, the proletariat. For Marx and Engels, at least, private property rights protect the freedom of some nevertheless non just deny the freedom, besides results in the exploitation, of umteen oppositewises. To go out this argument we must first look at the coffin nail of Marxs speculation. Marx strongly believed that capitalist society consisted of devil classes, the bourgeoisie, or the design class, and the proletariat, who atomic number 18 the exploited class: To primary(prenominal)tain its trust conceition private property must also carry on the mankind of the property - less take shapeing class mandatory to give way the calculateies. The proletariat is compelled, however, to abolish itself on none of its miserable condition. T his testament require the abolition of priv! ate property... hold back to simplfy and make it easy to to a lower placestand. The rich get richer and to poor die catchy hard to make it. We do non ever knowledge our personal property such(prenominal)(prenominal) as land. in one case it is payed off the government tummy spend a centime if from you for non payment of taxes. Also if you kill someone while hard to protect your personal property you can go to prison. I ferret out it ironic that Marx surroundd capitalism was the cause of the exploitation of the many a(prenominal) by the few, as that is on the scarceton how I consume always viewed fabianism. The Soviet join and Eastern europium were once prime examples of how collectivism non sole(prenominal) exploited the many by scatter misery widely, but also ensconced the relatively few who govern in luxury. I cant look at of a si ngle capitalist society in which differ citizens and other undesirables hire been pain and butchered, perhaps in the millions, as Stalin ordered. In general, authors should non chitchat on their give es introduces, especially with an insult stating that a user who took the prison name to leave a legitimate chin-wagging further looks at topics in black and white. Comments ar intended for attempts written by others. Having to write a lengthy comment astir(predicate) ones own essay may indicate to some establishers that the authors essay was not sufficiently clear. Its bad enough that the essay was wordy; the enigma should not be made worse by the light upon of a wordy comment by the author. Authors also should not rate their own essays as good. The essays grade of 58% seems a bit low, but justifiable. The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and china are the ONLY examples we have of socialism. You cannot judge a theory just by one example. And i! t save is one example, although many countries were communist, they were only satellite states of the USSR, it was a whole pudding pitfall (with the elision of China, but that area is complicated) that had control. Firstly Marx believed that Communism could only work when the current political system (capitalism) exhausted itself. And he believed that would come about course, just as feudalism intermitd naturally when it just was not working anymore, it could no persistenter sustain itself sue to industrialisation. Capitalism has not done that yet. Secondly, he believed that communism would only work if the whole orb became communist. The very foundations of capitalism are that of contender. The very foundations of communism are that of equality - they are diametrically remote concepts. So to have fractional(prenominal) of the world communist and half of the world capitalist - with both sides desperate to show the other that their system was better - was just a recipe for disaster. Stalin, identical Hitler and other such fascist leaders were potentates. It is unfortunate for everyone that Stalin gained power, but has very curt to do with the political theory of communism. However, Stalin was determined to show the critical capitalists of the west that his empire was better than theirs. He took everything to extremity and put all his efforts into competing with the West, an idea that defies the very re bill of communism. All the resources went into strenghtening the military, and furthering the economy. But he had no real long term goal. While the economy grew at unconvincing rates, it was not stable as resources were being sent to the improper places, the empire was secretly in turmoil as Stalin went cordial slaughtering an estimated 20 million batch. He partly created the Cold War, the biggest competition thinkable between the two superpowers of the world, and, again, competition is against the very launch ideas for communism. not only that, but originally the c! ommunist troupe in Russia was fragmented, its original purpose was to overthrow the Tsars (monarchy). It was split into two main groups, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. The Mensheviks necessitateed Communism to be brought about quietude securey and democratically. The Bolsheviks were fervent for a revolution. It was the Bolshevik revolution that kick go forthed the rise of the Communist caller in Russia and indeed the Soviet Empire. There are so many events surrounding the establishment of Communism nearly the world in the 20th Century that it is not unfeignedly a prime example at all to argue the facial expression against Marxs Communism. The Soviet Empire followed one establish of Commnunism - bolshy-Leninism - and the rise of a man as extreme as Stalin could not be predicted. The fact that capitalism is still surgical operation around the world and does not look memorisey to collapse is some other factor that must be considered. Any system whose opposes the conc ept of competition yet was forced to engage in something as gigantic as the Cold War cannot possibly survive. And if the Mensheviks bod of Communism had won over the Bolsheviks, that communism had come about democratically and through a parlimentary system, then who knows what might have happened.

I dont think that you can judge Marxs theories so quick when the only non-theoretical example had circumstances that were as extreme, and did not entirely champion Marxs own personal theory of Communism. Not true if I should be commenting on the comments and not the essay, but s ince I have read everything Id like to put in my 2 ce! nts. I dont think johnjip should talk when he says authors should not comment on their own essays since thats pretty much the only thing he does! You just have to look at his 3 essays to see that the mass of the comments are his own *sigh* coveting I could make this comment anonymous, I dont want to start any fights again. are exactly what essays are all about. The side languague is expressive, what is the point of having languague if you dont use it to its full potential? Maybe its only wordy because you dont understand it? Also, if you read the lengthy explanation, you might finger that it is not commenting on the essay, thus neither adding or subtracting to it, but clarifying the unfounded point you made yourself about the former(prenominal) communist soviet center being a prime example of how communism wouldnt work. As the lengthy comment states, there were many factors modify to the collapse of communism in the soviet union (see my other essay - its an account for the collapse of communism) that were extreme and unusual. Not only that, but your comment has little relevance to the essay, as it is red ink political theory. Again, it was not red communism that dominated the communist east. Although founded on certain Marxist principles, Lenin formed his own theories from that and Stalin, and radical in his own right, added to that with his own terrifying policies. Not Marx. stand by your facts right. johnjjp - she doesnt even mention anything slightly the soviet union/ eastern Europe. The question is about private property rights in coincidence to the Communist Manifesto and she answers the question. The Soviet Union was led by Stalin, an exceptionally evil man, who debauch the Communist theory. Thus, the Soviet Union cannot be held as a prime example. Countries which were initially capitalist, such as Germany, and Italy, also managed to capture fascists who took over and turned it into a dictatorship. The! Soviet Union is no different - it was also untangle by a dictator and it is irrelevant which system is use since both capitalism and communism have been corrupted by fascists in the past. I intuitive feeling like I know more about this now since also have finished an essay on it! You say you cant think of a single capitalist country where dissenting citizens and other undesirables have been tortured and butchered...well, there is one right under your perfume! AMERICA. George Bush is openly allowing the torture of masses in Guantanamo Bay. Furthermore, these people are being detained there without trial. The Irish news at the moment are reporting disputes between the Irish politics and the United States because US planes are lemniscus off in Ireland to refuel before they go on to middle eastern countries. In these planes are American citizens who are being transported by the US authorities to these countries so they can be legally tortured, as under US justice this i s illegal. America, the ultimate capitalist country, fares little better than many dictatorships under close scrutiny. wherefore has everyone rated her comments badly? I liked the fact the essay was wordy and she has a fair point to argue back at johnjjp. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay