Political Ideology Of Socialism Management Essay


Discuss About The Political Ideology Of Socialism Management?



Political theorists have come up with different explanations in trying to explain the economic system and how best can a country implement her policies. The common theories are capitalism, socialism or communism. However, in this essay, I intend to compare and contracts Karl Marx and Robert Owen’s article related to socialism as a political theory. Specifically, the essay identifies the argument that both authors’ tries to put across, that is, what is the probable reason that one can deduce from the two articles that made them write the article. Secondly, the essay elaborates similarities and differences that exist in the argument between the two articles or authors, which include but is not limited to social vision, why they believe that such a change occurs and if they suggest a moderate or a radical change. Lastly, the essay aims at analyzing which of the two arguments is the most elaborate and convincing based on historical evidence as well as its implications.

Exploitation of the Working Class

Both Karl Marx and Robert Owen articles try to explain how the working classes are being exploited by few who claim to own the means of production. In effect, Owen describes the rise of a class of people while Owen talks of an introduction to new ways of manufacturing that have exploited the laborer with the aim of maximizing profit (Dale, 2014). The bourgeois is a group of people that the article talks about, these are the few who have accumulated a lot of wealth by using the effort of the laborer who continues to be poorer as the resources increasingly become minimal. On the other hand, Owen believes that the government introduction of a modern way of manufacturing or rather mechanization is generating a lot of profit making the legislature to implement laws that favor an increase in productivity at the expense of the workers. In addition to that, both Owen and Marx explain how a few people that profits from the system are becoming inhuman (Bonefeld, 2011). Specifically, those who supposedly control the means of production do not have the interest of the laborer at heart unlike in the past where such a new system of production of goods never existed.

How different or similar are the two arguments

There exist differences and similarities between the two cases. To start with, Marx believes that the exploitation of the workers began with the introduction of private ownership of properties. On the other hand, the Owen believes that increased demand for human labor and in effect exploitation of the working class is as a result of mechanization of production (Beeghley, 2015). Another difference is the how the two authors believe the solution to the now existing problem. Marx believes that the bourgeois dominance will eventually end as a result of rebellion from the exploited working class also called proletarians. The explanation for this is that the more the beneficially of the system gets wealthier, the more they continue to aggrieve the working class, and it will eventually reach a point where the proletarians will be more aggrieved to a point they cannot hold anymore (Lichtheim, G., 2015). Thus, Marx believes that a revolution will take place one day and rectify the mess, or rather, the article suggests that it’s only through a revolution that will redress the mess. On the other hand, Owen is of the opinion that it is the government either through her policy or legislation that can rectify the exploitation (Ellman, 2014). In effect, the second author is the view that moderate action like reforms is the one to take place to save the people from exploitation. Also, while the social vision of one is for people to work willingly without dependency, the other argues that people are independent when they voluntarily work together (Owen, 1927). Lastly, the difference of the two appears to suggest that change can result to preserve status quo or as a result of emerging needs.

On the similarity between the two authors, the two articles try to suggest that human nature is inherently changeable and tend to behave as per the prevailing circumstances. For instance, both articles demonstrate that the material gain that a few enjoy having made them bad and become inhuman (Selznick, 2014). Additionally, there is evidence that both authors are deductive on their main arguments. For instance, in explaining the challenges facing the working class, both authors deduce a sequence of events that will either make the working class start a revolution or why morality is better than greed and love of profit over people.

The argument that is more convincing

There are several historical evidence that can show between Marx or Owen, who is more convincing. Firstly, Karl Marx is right that workers exploitation still existed in the past in the form of slavery in a bid to secure cheap and enough labor for the production of goods. These include but are not limited to the trans-Saharan and trans-Atlantic slave trade.In addition to that, a revolution based on social injustice will one day take place, Russian revolution of 1917 is an example where the exploited masses or proletarian rebel against the bourgeois in a bid to avoid further exploitation (Lenin, and Chretien, 2015). Moreover, Marx ideas are evident in the contemporary society by the amount of money that the wealthiest people in the world have accumulated at the expense of the working class (Bideleux, 2014). In the USA for example, the gap between the rich and the working class is so big even though they are the one that offers labor for the creation of the same wealth. However, the United States of America, which is the largest economy in the world, and one that has the largest private property ownership, is not on the record of ever experiencing a revolt by the exploited masses. I however contradicts Marx’s ideas.

Owen’s article on the other hand is not so much convincing, historically, mechanization in the production of goods as a result of industrial revolution brought about the need for cheap labor and in effect exploitation of the working class. On the contrary, though, mechanization and the mushrooming of industry attracted people who migrated from rural areas to urban areas in search of better working conditions (Crosby, 2015). Historical evidence showing rural to urban migration demonstrates that it is not necessarily true that before mechanization there were better lives for people. Instead, people were attracted to work in factories for better lives. Therefore, but comparing the two authors, and judging by historical evidence, both past and in modern society, Marx’s article is more convincing than that of Owen.

As a person analyzing the two articles, several implications come out clearly. Firstly, the two articles suggest that the current economic or political system that allows private ownership of properties is not good as it creates a few class of people who become incredibly wealthy while at the same time exploiting the majority of others (Acemoglu, and Robinson, 2015). Additionally, Owen suggest that the working conditions of workers ought to be improved, avoid child labor and most importantly, provide good health and education to children before they mature enough to start working (Hoppe, 2013). Moreover, both Marx and Owen suggest why morality reigns supreme against all other personalities. Another implication of the argument is that people have become more materialistic than human. Lastly, Marx believes that people will naturally rebel or revolt when exploitation continues for too long.

The reading is essential in many ways, firstly, both Marx and Owen are convincing on the current state of politics. In that, politicians are not necessarily concerned about the interest of the ordinary citizen but of the state (Balibar, 2013). Additionally, Marx gives gives a brief history and explanation of why capitalist countries and those embracing private ownership of properties have produced a class of very rich people. Moreover, his reading is useful in explaining the numerous multilateral corporations that exist in Africa which is on record for paying African a relatively low salary as opposed to what they pay in their mother countries. Lastly, even though both author are relevant and both have historical evidence that supports their argument, Marx is more convincing than Owen in many ways as stipulated above.


Therefore, both authors’ ideology is exploitation of the working class by the bourgeois. Marx and Owen try to show how a few dominant group is exploiting the working class which are the majority. However, the two authors differ in quite a number of ways. Firstly, Marx believes that private ownership of property is the genesis of all this mess and suggests a more radical solution to the problem to solve the mess. On the other hand, Owen suggests a more moderate way of solving the problem and believes that mechanization of production is the mother of all this mess. On the other hand, Marx article, even though there are historical contradictions that try to disapprove his article, is still more convincing than Owen’s article, basing on historical evidence.


Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A., 2015. The rise and decline of general laws of capitalism. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), pp.3-28.

Balibar, E., 2013. Masses, classes, ideas: Studies on politics and philosophy before and after Marx. Routledge.

Beeghley, L., 2015. Structure of social stratification in the United States. Routledge.

Bideleux, R., 2014. Communism and Development (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.

Bonefeld, W., 2011. Primitive accumulation and capitalist accumulation: Notes on social constitution and expropriation. Science & Society, 75(3), pp.379-399Answer:Answer:oppe, H.H., 2013. A theory of socialism and capitalism: economics, politics, and ethics. Springer Science & Business Media.

Lenin, V.I. and Chretien, T., 2015. State and revolution. Haymarket Books.

Lichtheim, G., 2015. Marxism (RLE Marxism): An Historical and Critical Study. Routledge.

Owen, R 1927, ‘Observations on the effect of the manufacturing system’, A new view of society & other writings, Dent, London, pp. 120– 129.

Selznick, P., 2014. The organizational weapon: A study of Bolshevik strategy and tactics (Vol. 18). Quid Pro Books.

How to cite this essay: