Marx vs. Carnegie

1.) "The history of society is a history of class struggles." I think this perfectly sums up Karl Marx's beliefs of the economic condition of society. Marx explained that the bourgeoisie was built upon merchants and has now become the present day middle class. The bourgeoisie has profited so much through traveling, marketing, achievement, and a lot of production. However, while this class profits wildly through all of these methods, it often results in deception and exploitation. The bourgeoisie has "swamped all other classes" by ridding of old traditions and methods and expects every other class to meet its standards. Ultimately, Marx believes that through exploitation, the bourgeoisie will lead to its own failure. On the other hand, the proletariat is the class that serves the bourgeoisie. They live to serve and work constantly to provide for themselves and their families. One big advantage of the proletariat is their broad geographic union. Ultimately, a revolution will occur which will lead to the inevitable overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. 

2.) In the bourgeoisie's eyes, mass production and improvement is a huge key to success. They will thrive off anything and anyone in order to achieve max profit and they expect everyone else to match them. I believe that the type of production and profit you made was how you achieved your identity or reputation. Obviously, you will be more well known for how much money you make and how you are able to earn that much.

3.) As Marx summarized at the end of his Manifesto, he believes communism will give the proletariat the chance to overthrow the bourgeoisie. The proletariat has a better chance of survival and working as a majority since they are a class of laborers and know what should be done. Due to the bourgeoisie's self interest and dependence on others, their ruin was inevitable. 

4.) I believe wealthy people, such as Bill Gates, should keep following in Carnegie's footsteps. I think people can get so caught up in their riches and wealth that they forget about those who are not as fortunate and struggling to get by. I think athletes especially get overpaid and those who protect us such as police, firefighters, teachers, and more should get better pay and opportunities. Ultimately, I think how you share your wealth is what defines you and Gates is doing a phenomenal job in doing so. 

Aristotle and Tocqueville

1.) If Aristotle saw this picture, I believe he would be quite fond of it because it demonstrates many of his ideals. Aristotle believed that effective governments were led by a leader, or leaders, who govern with a view to the common interest. In this painting, George Washington is clearly leading this meeting however he is looking out towards the room in an effort to understand where everyone is coming from. He also believed that voting is the people's right to express their rule, or opinion, and i believe that is why he would be on board with the constitution because that was their way of expressing their complaints and opinions. 

2.) When it comes to positions in society pictured in this painting, there is a leader or president (Washington), the public or the average in front, the cabinets behind the president, and the senators and congressmen sit directly in front of Washington. However, along with these positions and political aspects, there are also some social elements involved. Mutuality and skepticism are two that I found. I believe there is mutuality because all of these different people and classes are coming together to sign a petition for one common goal which was very important back then. I also think there is skepticism because while you can see people agreeing with the leader, there are some people in the back and in the crowd who don't look completely confident or supportive. 

3.) From looking at this painting, I think Aristotle would have assumed that the government being formed was a Democracy. His idea of a democracy was a society that believed in equality over anything else, and rid the city of a power that dominates through wealth or influence. Aristotle's idea of an oligarchy was a society that was the most interested in the wealthy. Clearly, the signing of the constitution was all about equality and being free from British power; and it did not matter what class you belonged in or how much money you earned, your opinion mattered most. 

4.) Many of the men who signed the constitution were of normal or middle class and did not have much power at the time. All of them ultimately wanted to be free of British rule and it took few people to take a stand and collaborate with all of these men to bring together a petition. After the events unfolded after the signing of the constitution, many of the men who led the way (Washington, Madison, Hamilton, etc.) were noticed and recognized and that is when they started making a difference.

5.) Tocqueville and Aristotle had many similar beliefs when it came to the government. Tocqueville agreed that all Americans can vote and that power can be distributed evenly and sometimes unevenly. While both men had similar opinions towards democracies, Aristotle was more broad with his research on governments. He mentioned oligarchy, tyranny, polity, and many other forms of governing styles. While Tocqueville agreed with Aristotle's views on democracy, he only focused on one style.  

MLK and Thoreau

Similar to Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr. was a firm believer in nonviolence. While protesting against the treatment of the black population, MLK was arrested and sent to the Birmingham Jail. After he was released he wrote a famous letter in regards to those who did not agree with his nonviolent protests. He is even passive in his letter by acknowledging the people's "genuine goodwill" and understanding their side and concern. Ultimately, the letter discusses the injustice and immorality occurring in Birmingham and in the world itself. He agrees that civil disobedience is a patriotic response to these situations and like many early Christians, MLK believes he must take the call to action.

I believe MLK Jr. read "Civil Disobedience" and most likely other works of Thoreau. MLK was very educated and knowledgeable about what he was speaking and protesting against. Therefore, it is very likely that he read "Civil Disobedience" and that gave him inspiration to rebel against the white man but keep things civil and nonviolent. Thoreau had a lot of similar ideas in that he believed to oppose and stand up against immorality and especially the corruption of the government. He did so by refusing to pay taxes, and MLK rebelled with peaceful protests. Ultimately, I believe MLK followed in Thoreau's footsteps by standing against the oppression brought by the government and the white population and following through with nonviolence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRIrqiwkdYs

Civil Disobedience

     
In today's society, there can be much corruption and disorder in the government. There are constant disagreements, feuds, and wars that occur between people and countries. Thoreau made note of this and explained that when the government rules by majority and not what is right, the other side is not being seen or heard and this leads to disaster. The other problem with this situation is that anyone who disagrees with how the government rules, is treated as an enemy. Instead, Thoreau believes that people should oppose the immoral wrongdoings and stand up for what they believe in, regardless of the consequences. Thoreau also made it clear that his idea of an effective government is one that governs the least. This means, not intervening in people's affairs and acting as a facilitator or mediator in those situations. This is a huge problem in today's government because, our president decides to intervene in foreign affairs even though past presidents have warned us not to. Ultimately, Thoreau's biggest value of a government, is to treat individuals equally and with respect and this is something that we still struggle with today.



The Mexican War occurred from 1846-1848 in a fight between the United States and Mexico. The war started after Polk was elected and there were many things that led up to the fight. The first cause was the western expansion of the United States and the idea of annexing Texas. While Texas was independent, the U.S. would not annex the state and Mexico also warned the states that if they tried to annex Texas at all that they would engage in war starting with border raids. The second cause was Polk ignoring Mexico's wishes and going ahead with the annexation of Texas. Polk occupied Texas and not only that, he tried to arrange a deal with Mexico where he would also occupy many states, (Oregan, New Mexico, California, etc.) that were already under Mexico's control. When Mexico rejected his proposition, Polk moved troops to a disputed zone that was technically a part of Mexico. He did not actually make any call to attack, but a Mexican cavalry attacked the U.S. anyway which finally began the war. The aftermath resulted in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which granted the annexation of Texas and Mexico agreed to sell California and the rest of of its northern territory.

               

When it comes to Thoreau's view of the government, Polk and his presidential body disregarded what Thoreau said to do. When Polk brought up his idea to occupy Texas and other Mexican territory, the house was split and resulted in a majority rule, which Thoreau disagreed with. One party did not think Polk had reasonable cause to take territory from Mexico and did not think that Polk was thinking about how the relations between the two sides would be effected. The other party supported Polk's conquest and believed that he was wise to continue expansion. Ultimately, the U.S. went to war divided and even though we were victorious, there were still tensions between Mexico and the U.S.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHO680fUhAQ

A blast From Past Governments

Rousseau said, "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains." He believed in liberty and that men should not have to give up their freedom or will. If he were here today, I believe he would approve of a democratic government. In this type of government, everyone would have the freedom to speak their minds, make decisions and laws together, and there would be no authoritative figure holding power over anyone. Everyone would be equal and free to make their own choices which was a big thing Rousseau believed in. In today's society, very few countries still believe in a direct democracy and many of those countries are in Scandinavia. I think this type of government should be implemented in many other places but, a lot of countries prefer to stick to republics and monarchies.

            

Machiavelli was a firm believer in doing whatever it took to reach the best end goal. He said that the means always matter but the ends do not necessarily justify them. However, he thought that even if they were not justifiable, it was still worth it to accept their consequences in order to achieve the end goal. A similar situation occurred when Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence. This was created so that people could voice their arguments towards the British Crown and form a "justified revolution" as Thomas Jefferson explained it. I believe this is very similar to what Machiavelli said about means and ends. Jefferson led people to defy the British Crown and fight for what they believe in. People were killed, imprisoned, and punish for doing so but even then, it was worth it for the end goal---independence, just like Machiavelli said. I personally believe that it is important to fight for what you believe in, even if it leads to very serious consequences. Therefore i think independence is one of the most important things to fight for because that is your freedom, your rights, and everything you stand for. Ultimately, I believe Jefferson knew what he was doing in that the end goal was had more importance than the consequences and he would have definitely followed in Machiavelli's footsteps and achieved the ends no matter what the means were.