Socialism is a set of political beliefs and principles that have a general interest of creating a system that allows all indi

SOCIALISM

Name

Institution

Introduction

Socialism is a set of political beliefs and principles that have a general interest of creating a system that allows all individuals to benefit from the resources of a country (Ebenstein, 1960). Here, the state is the owner of the nation’s major industries. Different scholars have provided diverse opinions on socialism.

Herbert Spencer came from a middle class, traditional English family. He was born in the year 1820. He was known for his hate towards state of power. Spencer had early interaction with philosophy through a Godwinian anarchist while working for Economist organ. Herbert absorbed the beliefs and principles held by the anarchist Thomas Hodgkin (Dombrowski, 1966). This paper focuses on socialism; precisely, philosophy associated with Herbert Spencer and Edward Bellamy. The paper functions to analyze the ideas of these philosophers and compares the application of their beliefs and their significance in life. The individual ideas possessed by these philosophers are weighed in relation to the current situation. The paper uses secondary sources of information is studying the subject matter. These sources include books and journals that offer a reliable basis for argumentative discussions. It is vital to use factual information on the subject to develop a critical evaluation of their ideas.

Herbert Spencer and the contribution he made towards philosophy were related to English industrialism. His ideas had the intention of joining in one structure that is coherent the recent and findings in biology and physics. This is the period when Darwin had formed his ideas on natural selection and other investigations were I fields like thermodynamics; they formed a bright generalization. His system was focused on dedicating the steel age and competition, steam engines, struggle and exploitation. Spencer had thoughts that developed in light of positive thinking and English science. His Synthetic philosophy was made from the scientific learning that was prominent in the intellectual environment he lived in. The ideas he had were intelligible in a philosophy setting. Social laws associated with him were unique cases of the general principles he believed. His social theories in the United States of America bought much appeal because of the association they had with his belief in productive integration of knowledge (Macy, 2000).

Earlier philosophers contributed towards obsolescence just as the pre-Newtonian philosophers engaged did during their time. The change into naturalism was brought about by world-systems that are mechanistic; its trend is proposed by various philosophers including Spencer (Smith, 2001). Spencer had his ideas relating to those of the eighteenth century philosophers. He attempted to merge the implications in science to action and social thought. Spencer’s deductive system began with what he termed as the persistence of force; this is popularly known as the Conservation of Energy. Philosophy is expected to build persistence of energy which is in the form of motion and matter. This manifestation is what makes up human inquiry. All over the universe, man struggles to observe the (incessant) redistribution of motion and matter, which is apportioned rhythmically between dissolution and evolution.

Focusing on persistence of force, Herbert claimed that all things that are homogeneous have unstable incoherence. This is due to the different future results obtained after this force has acted on their parts. After this process, the developed outcome is heterogeneous. It is this transformation that accounts for the change in earth forms from simple forms to complex forms. For instance, the development of human structures from a common mass of cells or the transformation of human societies. He points out that everything that man associates with has undergone some evolutionary process. The final outcome of this process in society and animals is caused by achieving an equilibrium state. This process is called equilibration according to Spencer’s ideologies. The final achievement of equilibrium is considered inevitable by many philosophers; this is because the process of evolution cannot proceed towards heterogeneity forever (Masy, 2000). This process has its own end point called limit where there is no increase in heterogeneity. It is during this time that dissolution comes into effect, universal rhythm patters the process. It is in this way that the process of integration is followed by disintegration. In the case of society, the change is towards the realization of a harmonious, fully adapted and stable state unlike animals where they die and then decay. Here, evolution results into a system that is of complete happiness and perfection. In America, this positive impact would have been met with mixed reactions if it was not for its relation to religion. Spencer gave a doctrine called the Doctrine of Unknowable, which bound the ideas he had on evolution (Masy, 2000). The controversial point was whether these beliefs were in accordance to religion, explaining the reconciliation of science and religion.

Herbert satisfied this concern and went on to give an assurance on future scientific progress. He claimed that any new developments from science relating to religion and the world are naturally inviolable. Those religious leaders who could dally with his views in liberalism praised these sentiments. On the other hand, others could not come to terms with his opinion in spite of reason, they insisted that faith could not unite with Spencer’s views (Heilbroner, 1999). There were some leaders who connected Christian teachings with his thoughts on evolution.

It was Spencer’s belief that the evolutionary laws in biology and science could apply to society. He compared the principles of change and social structure to the nature of the universe. Spencer and the next group of social Darwinists did poetic justice to society. Assessing the concept of survival of the fittest, the idea was a generalization of biology for the (cruel) procedures that reflective observers experienced at work early in the nineteenth century society (Dombrowski, 1966). Darwin derived the political economy at that time. The devastating social conditions present during the early times of industrial revolution proved another philosopher, Malthus, right about a matrix transformation for the natural selection theory.

The social selection theory, for Spencer, was brought about by his concern for human. He believed that the human race was benefiting from pressure of subsistence on population. Progress from past human times was entirely caused by the pressure on population. The application for the theory is evident with need to adapt due pressure on skill, self-control, intelligence by way of innovation in technology; only made the best generations survive. His arguments focused on the mental state of evolution, thus agreed with Lamarck’s theory of evolution. The thought of relating the development of man to the inheritance of characteristics gave him optimism in evolution (Ebenstein, 1960). He valued his belief in the theory that he could back it up despite any scientific opinion.

Spencer first wrote a book called Social Statics as a reaction attack upon the Benthamite belief and challenge. This reaction was from the innate notion of Benthamites that legislation plays a positive role in social reforms. The ethics of utilitarianism did not apply to him except that of the final standard of value; which relates “greatest happiness for the greatest numbers”. It was his deep belief that human adaptation in terms of character to any conditions of life is due to adaptation.

Eward Bellamy wrote a book talking about the “Horrid World” during his childhood in Massachusetts. He speaks of seeing children work under horrid conditions and families living in harsh conditions. Bellamy, on account of his past experiences, writes that he could not think of letting a human being go through this situation. It is his sensitivity to human pain that made him protest against this organization. This book was embraced by a number of readers, who saw reform in social and political life (Smith, 2001). His Utopian view of the future world put his thoughts in the eyes of many leaders and citizens in America.

The label of the nineteenth century’s end, by Mark Twain, was the Gilded Age. This is because of the triumph by the tycoons after amassing huge fortunes (Masy, 2000). This time was only favoring the rich who struggled to boost their status, according to Marx. Bellamy supports the views of socialism and even called it “Nationalism”. In his book, he talks about waking from a long sleep to realize almost ideal concept to his perception of socialism. The year 2000 for him is near perfect for harmony, prosperity and cooperation present. In his Utopian world, the loyalty which is given to the (solidarity) of the state is what binds the society together.

Bellamy criticizes the treatment of citizens during these harsh times. He did not support the idea of excessive efforts from individuals for the benefit of equal degree. It was unfair for the tyrannical individuals to share in the efforts of the poor; this explains why he did not agree with capitalism. In this Utopian world, he does not see the “tyranny” and big “corporations” benefiting unfairly (Heilbroner, 1999). Those individuals who subjected mankind to cruel servitude had been rid off in this type socialism; they only valued greed and ignored humanity. He calls the corporations hideous as capitalism can only lead to enlargement of these corporations. It is in this Utopian world that Bellamy profits are eliminated through creating one large business corporation and the ultimate monopoly. His world is governed by the Principle of Universal Military Service. These principles are not common but the benefit is that there is satisfaction in working. Socialism is considered the only truth which can free mankind of these problems.

The nation assures them of support through education, nurture and the citizens are given maintenance for life. Men who are fairly sensible make up the central government; they organize the world. They work to ensure that there are traces of inordinate luxury or poverty. Mankind in this world is focused on building the nation and not personal interests just the same way soldiers honor their country. This military approach is designed to organize every detail of the nation. Unlike capitalism, where individuals work to meet the interests of other people, the efforts of individuals are directed towards the nation.

The respect for specialized work is interesting for Bellamy. He compares this with the past scenario, and favors the respect and cooperation of citizens. The satisfaction is because every individual is given that which suites them. Capitalism champions for individualism while socialism promotes cooperation (Heilbroner, 1999). It only through this type of cooperation that the state is build. It was America that was the pioneer for this evolution. Socialists believe that capitalists are greedy farm owners who are out to enslave everyone.

The socialists are inclined to the betterment of the nation for the general happiness of citizens. The modern corporations do not agree with the thought of individual interests through capitalism. It is this ideal world that talks of a perfect society but critics argue that socialism is the cause of poverty in society.

The socialists had a speculation that concerned achieving the ideal politician. This is the practicability of the concept. According to Spencer, the defects that are found in a society are not wiped out but are carried on to the next generations. The passing of these evils in society do not have to do with the society’s structure. In Spencer’s view, the evils surrounding greed, oppression will thrive on in society through human nature. This is completely different from the idea of Bellamy’s ideal world, Bellamy talks of a system that is free from evil intent. In spite of the organization in Bellamy’s Utopia they sources end up becoming irresistible for the leaders. This leads to subsequent forms of evils in society through greed and corruption.

According to Bellamy’s world, the system of working is focused on achieving the greater good. The state is the main concern for socialists who work in cooperation to build the state. Individualism is only purposed to give more to the rich and oppress the citizens. For instance, Spencer’s argument is in the line of, a government system that uses its citizen to build their political economy and is administered by honest minds, but the notion of embezzlement state is inevitable. The two philosophers do not contrast in terms of philosophical stands but their application of the concept is different. Herbert does not ignore the presence of evil or potential greed in the socialism concept. On the other hand, Bellamy does not account for evil as the new society is transformed and united for one cause (Heilbroner, 1999). The fact that Bellamy disqualifies envy and fighting in his world prompted doubts. For a state to be fully united, the citizens must be totally perfect in terms of character.

Humans cannot co-exist completely without fighting and envying. The utopia created by Bellamy is not practical for the real situation. Spencer, in this evolutionary analysis of society and its transformation, talked of a society that would inherit the characteristics of their predecessors. This explains why he supports the idea of evil moving throughout all social transformations. Bellamy argues that in his Utopia the ideal government takes care of this inordinate greed for resources and supplies the citizen’s needs fully. His belief on having state support forever is impractical as Spencer does not support full support for all citizens.

In his idea of a perfect world, the transformations of one generation to the next discard evil in society (Smith, 2001). He compares the year 2000 with the notion he had on society and politics. The only impracticability was on human nature. He discarded the idea of individuals working for the benefit of others. These greedy individuals only notice their market competition for better profits. The conditions of citizens are not important for them, they are mere slaves and a source of labor. In his book, he talks of families living in wild scenarios without the concern of their masters.

Social ethics advocate for humane working conditions. For the leaders to ignore the needs of their slaves and only anticipate their labor, they must have had a perception of social classes. This puts the citizens at the lowest of classes while they rule with cruelty. This marginalization in terms of social status affects American citizens before the dawn of socialism. It was until the concept of socialism was created that citizens took interest and understood its benefits that they adopted it. This harmony in terms of working, would improve the status of the state thus citizens benefit.

Another difference in terms of concepts in socialism for Bellamy and Spencer is the satisfaction of the work given (Dombrowski, 1966). Bellamy speaks of content from the work given to the citizens by the central system. The process of allocation is according to the qualifications and merits levels of citizens. For instance, working positions would be allocated through a transparent system. Spencer’s view of human nature disputes this point. Still focusing on the evil character of citizens, the different levels of performance and income would finally bring envy and evil intent amongst each other. These bring about social crimes like stealing, looting and hijacking for the well-off individuals. Before working one needs some experienced and knowledge of what they are to do. A society cannot boost their social status by using unskilled individuals in their system. The application of these concepts of not practical. Bellamy claims that the support from the state on education would ensure a literate and satisfied society.

Looking at the present scenario in America, the social system is more inclined to Spencer’s ideology. Bellamy’s Utopia is not concurrent to the present times in America; this is because the idea of perfection in terms of character is not present. For instance, the country has recorded deadly criminal attacks for many years. Internal conflicts by citizens of states are as a result of envy or corruption cases. This means that his long dream lacked its practicality in terms of human nature. The expected outcome from Bellamy would have been a socially united generation. This proved Spencer’s concept on the evolution of character from one generation to another right. Just like the horrid society, the social generation still posses these traits despite their development.

Another disapproving example to Bellamy is the international wars that have occurred. World War and Cold War show that there is no full cooperation or understanding in the current system. Many nations fought against each other with fatal results; for example, Japan suffered Nuclear Poisoning from these conflicts (Masy, 2000). Spencer’s idea on human nature can satisfy this concern on socialism and character. It explains the violation of Bellamy’s concept on the ideal world.

On the idea of state support to its citizens is not practically available. Educational needs are not met for every individual in America thus literate level are low. This puts those who are illiterate at a disadvantaged position as they would not face standard qualifications with the learned. It marginalizes this group of people thus forming a disadvantaged minority. The elimination of poverty from the state is far from achievement. In America, many states host ghettos that consist of the poor and needy. According to Bellamy the present case of socialism is inadequate to qualify as his Utopia.

Spencer’s argument on evolution characteristics is seen as more practical than the Utopian concept. Greed in society is at its climax as cases of leadership involved in corruption are reported and prosecuted daily. This means that the rich still posses the trait of greed and opportunism. They struggle to build more assets despite the relative social differences; this is just like capitalism and greed. The ideal authority according to Bellamy should prevent social greed but socialism in the United States does not show this Utopia (Masy, 2000). Ironically, the authorities are the key figures in mismanagement and corruption.

The future socialism according to Edward is far from attainment; this is because social evils like greed are still found in the modern socialism in these states. This puts the applicability of his ideas in question. Utopia is seen as a dream and ideal thus impractical in life. Character is thus seen to move from one generation to another despite other social changes. A society whether united or separated, maintains its characteristics in social evil.

The Utopian experience is considered a perfect example of socialism due the ease on human life (Smith 2001). Consider where the citizens of a state are provided with both primary and secondary needs by the state. There would be no hardships in life due to sufficient provisions from the system. This is a desirable condition for any state as the central government would receive equal participation. This would eliminate greed as the state caters for all citizens in the manner. The society would be truly free from criminal activities as all citizens are income earners. Financial capabilities would be the same and the economic strain would be minimal. Lack of corporate cartels who overstep their duty in deciding market values.

The present international relations need this Utopian concept. It would promote international cooperation among current enemy states. The resources present in these nations would be developed for the benefit of citizens and not individual interests of leaders. Human fatalities and government instabilities would be averted. The social structure of Bellamy’s Socialism is ideal for full realization of societal evolution (Dombrowski, 1966).

Conclusion

Socialism is a set of political beliefs and principles that have a general interest of creating a system that allows all individuals to benefit from the resources of a country. Herbert Spencer and the contribution he made towards philosophy were related to English industrialism. His ideas had the intention of joining in one structure that is coherent the recent and findings in biology and physics. Social laws associated with him were unique cases of the general principles he believed. His social theories in the United States of America bought much appeal. Spencer had his ideas relating to those of the eighteenth century philosophers. He attempted to merge the implications in science to action and social thought. Spencer’s deductive system began with what he termed as the persistence of force; this is popularly known as the Conservation of Energy.

Looking at evolution; it can be defined as the integration of matter that is progressive followed by the dissipation of motion while dissolution is matter disorganization that is followed by motion being absorbed in the process (Heilbroner, 1999). Herbert claimed that all things that are homogeneous have unstable incoherence. This is due to the different future results obtained after this force has acted on their parts. After this process, the developed outcome is heterogeneous. The final outcome of this process in society and animals is caused by achieving an equilibrium state. This process is called equilibration according to Spencer’s ideologies. The final achievement of equilibrium is considered inevitable by many philosophers.

Bellamy supports the views of socialism and even called it “Nationalism”. In his book, he talks about waking from a long sleep to realize almost ideal concept to his perception of socialism. Bellamy supports the views of socialism and even called it “Nationalism”. In his book, he talks about waking from a long sleep to realize almost ideal concept to his perception of socialism. He did not support the idea of excessive efforts from individuals for the benefit of equal degree. It was unfair for the tyrannical individuals to share in the efforts of the poor; this explains why he did not agree with capitalism. His world is governed by the Principle of Universal Military Service. These principles are not common but the benefit is that there is satisfaction in working.

Spencer’s argument is in the line of, a government system that uses its citizen to build their political economy and is administered by honest minds, but the notion of embezzlement state is inevitable. Humans cannot co-exist completely without fighting and envying. The utopia created by Bellamy is not practical for the real situation. Spencer, in this evolutionary analysis of society and its transformation, talked of a society that would inherit the characteristics of their predecessors. The two philosophers do not contrast in terms of philosophical stands but their application of the concept is different. The state is the main concern for socialists who work in cooperation to build the state. Individualism is only purposed to give more to the rich and oppress the citizens.

In his idea of a perfect world, the transformations of one generation to the next discard evil in society (Smith, 2001). He compares the year 2000 with the notion he had on society and politics. The only impracticality was on human nature. Spencer’s argument on evolution characteristics is seen as more practical than the Utopian concept. This means that the rich still posses the trait of greed and opportunism. They struggle to build more assets despite the relative social differences. The future socialism according to Edward is far from attainment; this is because social evils like greed are still found in the modern socialism in these states. There would be no hardships in life due to sufficient provisions from the system. This is a desirable condition for any state as the central government would receive equal participation.

References

Dombrowski, J. (1966). The early days of Christian socialism in America. New York: Octagon

Books.

Ebenstein, W. (1960). Great political thinkers: Plato to the present. New York: Rinehart.

Heilbroner, R. (1999). The Worldly Philosophers (7th ed.). New York, NY: Touchstone Books.

Macy, J. A. (2000). Socialism in America. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, Page & Co.

Smith, K. (2001). Socialism in America. Washington.