Bernstien Face off

So comes the inevitable clash of social theory. The argument is proposed that capitalism's abillity to adapt, combined with incresingly democratic societies will lead to the death of Marx' and Engels' social theory that the Proletariat will rise up, usurp the power of government, and create a classless society. I have to agree with Bernstien (history is on his side). As things continue to move forward the revolutions may have happened in several countries, but the key thing is that they did not suscribe to the core ideals of socialism. Marx did not like the things people were doing with his ideas. Somewhere along the line socialism got turned into an ecogovernology. An ideaology, a system of economics, and a form of government. This gave the Manifesto social theory a bad name. In the end you have to look at how these things did indeed impact for good. Social institutions have been placed more and more in current democratic countries improving conditions for the empoverished. Marx and Engels helped as well as hurt many nations with their idea.

marx aka the godfather

The communist manifesto! The book that started it all. Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels sure did stir up a lot of people with their ideas. I just do not follow. I mean they compare the control of the means of production (mop) to that of a sorcerer? Like really? People believe these guys to be legends? They foresee the overthrow of the Bourgeois by the Proletariat, and after they win, they take control of the government. Would you elect an uneducated factory worker to run a country? Hmmmm, sounds sketchy to me to say the least. Their view of a unified community is a bright spot in this dim doctrine. Unfortunately that would require all people to all of a sudden like each other. That does not just happen because there is no longer a middle class. Socialism is a flat failure of an ideology. Unfortunate but true. See its a great idea, but until it is proven to work I will be a naysayer for socialism and communism.

Heywood, this guy is allover the place

Who does this guy think he is? Speakin about socialism AND capitalism, what a pimp. Anyways he looks at the foundations of socialism, the inequallity, class system, and capitalism and how they attributed to the rise of the grandeur of socialism. People thought that this was great and it was a way out of poverty. This is probably a more radical idea as many nations have moved away from a strict socialist economy, and with it the class-less society seems to be vanishing. I wonder if someone could actually make socialism work.

Coulson: Vouchers are a terrible idea! please tell me if im wrong

I feel as if this blog might alienate me from some of the class. But really I do not mind. Coulson says that vouchers to attend privates schools should be given to the economically less fortunate. Unfortunately for him he contradicts himself in his own essay!:

Additionally, a student must believe he or she is capable of some degree of
educational success in order to undertake the effort to learn. In the field of psychology this is known as the "locus of control" effect; when a person believes a goal to be beyond his or her control, he or she is not likely to seek it.

^This is a quote he makes. Some people are naturally more gifted then others and have a higher intelligent quotient, or capacity to learn. Some schools are geared toward aiding more gifted people, some are not. If you give a voucher to someone who is not necessarily mentally capable with doing the work at upper echelon private schools, then you are wasting the schools time and the donors money.

This is simply one reason why the voucher system is a bad idea. I suppose if you instituted schools that specialize in teaching children of similar mental abilities via standardized tests this could work. Kids would have to be tested to see which range of schools they could choose from and participate in classes with peers of similar mentally ability. (If you disagree with me, please say so, I'm tough i can take the criticism.)

Freedom and Economics....

So Friedman argues that there cannot be democracy without capitalism. As a strong supporter of capitalism, is does my heart damage to have to disagree with a man who won a nobel peace prize for economics supporting such a glorious economic scheme. I suppose if he were talking about a completely socialist society, he might be right, but that to me would classify as a communist society. Canada and Sweden both have heavy elements of socialism in their economies. They are democratic and seem to be getting along just fine. (Well actually I am kinda wrong here, Sweden is technically a constitutional monarchy, but the kind does not really do much, plus, in theory Canada and Sweden both are considered market economies with socialist elements mixed in.) I feel as if just because no one has insitued a successful socialist economy in a democratic state just yet, does not mean that it is impossible. Only it would take a very skilled government, and a people that has tremendous faith in said governmetn to actually have a socialist democracy. But Friedman is a smart guy, and I like his knock on social security, because its gonna be in shambles before anyone in my generation has a chance to touch what they are puting into the gov't.