Top-Rated Free Essay

Republic vs. Democracy

Powerful Essays
Plato’s Republic vs. Democracy
Ogochukwu Okpala

Introduction In this era when individuals are questioning the legitimacy and wisdom of unregulated free markets, issues are raised about the most efficient form of economic activity and the best role for government in an economy. These issues have been discussed at many points in the past, and different societies have come to different conclusions regarding political and economic systems. In the United States, and many developed nations around the world, the view has often been that democracy accompanied by capitalism, offers the best, most efficient use of resources and governments guided by those principles assure the best outcomes for their populations. Other countries have adopted very different governing principles. Communist doctrine, as adopted by some nations, endorses the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property (Communism: The failure of an utopian system, 2008). The civilization is governed by an individual, or individuals, whose function is to ensure the efficiency of the society as a whole. As an ideal, the communist doctrine defines a just city as one that eliminates the need for its citizens to wish to exploit each other. History appears to indicate that in practice, however, the communist vision cannot be fulfilled since “absolute power (which is given to the leader) corrupts absolutely” (Martin, 2009). Human nature does not appear to manage total supremacy well.

49

When authorities are left unchallenged, their characters appear to be altered, inverting their true selves with alter egos incapable of putting the welfare of others before their own. History provides examples of autocrats who brought tragedy and devastation to the people that they governed. Many were appointed in an attempt to bring relief in times of turmoil, but ended up by using their political prowess to dictate and oppress. Adolf Hitler, once a social misfit, became one of history’s most infamous tyrants whose attainment of power spiraled from the aftermath of the Treaty of Versailles (Hitler’s foreign policy, 2007). Against the backdrop of these various choices made by different nations throughout history, democracies have viewed the choice of that political system as obviously superior. Current events, however, once again raise questions about the optimal means of governance and the optimal form of economic activity that accompanies it. While the track record of ruling individuals, or classes, is somewhat spotty, the concept of a ruling elite finds a strong proponent in the philosopher Plato. While recognizing the fundamental flaw in humankind so clearly manifested in the “Hitlers” of the world, Plato believed in the appointment of one supreme guardian (the philosopher king), an individual, who with the proper education, was competent enough to decide on legislative policies. In Plato’s work The Republic, such a knowledgeable being determines the laws in the city. Plato believed that the philosopher king was incorruptible since his only desire was knowledge (his thirst for knowledge surmounting that of any vice). In spite of history’s lessons, is it plausible to believe that a society can be governed in such a manner? Or is democracy, “[where] the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (Boyle, 2007), the ideal form of governance when the true nature of humankind is considered? Further, given the current and past crises arising out of capitalism accompanied by democracy, could it be true that democracy is no less flawed than those other forms of governance? Plato’s arguments, made so long ago, resonate in the current world in much the same way as they did when they first appeared. Times of crisis remind us of the need for ongoing review of the assumptions we
50

make regarding the best way to govern and the best way to manage those scarce resources available to us. Plato provided one view of the best form of government, and consequently, offers some insight into the issues under review today. The Just State The Republic was arguably Plato’s most influential work. It portrays several dialogues between the philosopher Socrates and several observers in which they discuss a political theory for a just state. The central belief is that “justice and happiness stand and fall together. Not because good consequences…follow from being just, but because justice itself is so great that nothing gained by injustice could be greater” (Boyle, 2007). Socrates unified a just person and a just city, claiming that an individual’s soul contains three parts (three desires). The first part is the desire for wisdom and truth, the second for honor, and the last for gains. The individual’s parts correspond to those of a city’s. The portion of the soul that desires wisdom and truth is the principle role of the guardians of a city. The portion that desires honor is the principle role of the auxiliaries. The last portion that desires gains is the principle role of the producing class. Socrates believes that “guardians” should run a city because they are the only ones with the knowledge and the desire to do so. When contrasting this doctrine to the democratic process in American society, the question is raised as to whether Socrates’ republic would be more practical. A democracy allows for virtually all to take part in the election of a leader (with the possible exceptions of children, illegal immigrants and convicts). Campaigns may span years during which candidates debate in a national forum. Interviews are held to allow voters to gain knowledge of the candidates’ policies. In spite of this, how many Americans evaluate all policies and subsequently vote based on what is relevant to them? In fact, how many Americans understand the relevance of so many events that would allow them to make a truly informed decision? The media portray a narrow51

minded view of the world, showing only portions of what could impact life in the States. Many people knew nothing about Afghanistan and the injustices forced upon its people by the Taliban, until the events of 9/11. If people are not fully informed about events, domestic and foreign, then how can they understand any candidate’s proposed policies? Without complete and relevant information, the American democratic election process becomes a popularity contest. People favor the charismatic contender whether he is the best candidate or not. Is this how a country should be governed? To allow the public to vote based on emotions rather than an informed decision could be detrimental to the structure of a society. The logical conclusion is that it may be best to allow those who are truly informed (the wise) to determine what is best for the group. Those individuals who might disagree with such an idea on the basis that it is undemocratic should be advised that such practices already occur in democratic states. By its nature, a democracy allows for elected leadership to make decisions for the group. Events are concealed from the public at large for a variety of reasons, homeland security being a popular rationale currently. Given the power that this endows in a leadership, it stands to reason that such a leadership should be made up of the best, most informed, minds available. Plato’s View of Democracy Plato showed no fondness for democracy (where power is held by the people) because he believed that not all members of society were capable of making wise decisions. As voiced through Socrates, the Platonic principle is that only a few people in a just city (those individuals known as the philosophers) possess the principle portion of the soul that desires for truth and wisdom. Since this portion forms the majority of the philosophers’ souls, these individuals will primarily strive for truth and wisdom. Furthermore, since this portion of their souls is also rational, this ruling cadre will be just, assuring that the city they rule is also just.

52

Justice does not form the basis of rule in a capitalistic society, and by extension, will have a lesser role in a democratic republic. In a capitalistic system, where free markets (uncontrolled by the government) are endorsed, buyers and sellers come together in the exchange of goods and services. Money has a large influence in this society. America’s strength lies in its wealth. It plays a role in United States (U.S.) foreign policy tools (where sanctions and embargos are used to coerce other nations), and in U.S. domestic affairs (where tax policies and government contracts spread wealth to specific groups of citizens). Plato did not believe in money because he understood its power to corrupt. He believed that a society would be happier without it. When questioned how the city would defend itself without money, Socrates replied in The Republic that neighboring cities would come to their aid when promised the spoils of war. In contrast today, in the name of advancing democracy, war may be viewed as a source of increasing national wealth; manipulating oil sources in Iraq is justified since the country’s government was overthrown to be remade in an image viewed as preferable. Leaders not motivated by justice will find ways to rationalize immoral actions, or inactions, using the ends (increased wealth or control) to justify the means. Instances of inaction include the examples of the lack of attention paid to countries like Darfur and Rwanda where genocide occurs while the Western world turns a blind eye. Democratic nations see no political gain to be had from interference in foreign governments where innocent people suffer but no wealth or control is to be gained. The Republic proposed the view that morality outweighs rationality. If money and wealth are not at the forefront of society’s value system, morality dictates that all societies will be on an equal footing. In consequence, a society will have fewer wars since there would not be financial gains to be desired and mutual respect across nations would forbid war being used as a means of control of other nations.

53

Leadership Determination A distinction between the democratic state and Plato’s Republic lies in the appointment of its leaders. “Democratic elections are....competitive, periodic, inclusive, definitive elections in which the chief decisionmakers in a government are selected by citizens who enjoy broad freedom to criticize government, to publish their criticism and to present alternatives” (What is democracy?, 2008). In a democracy, after the candidates have campaigned and voiced their policies, the people are called upon to vote. In the U.S. version of democracy, people do not vote directly for a president. They are in fact voting for an elector who is a part of the Electoral College. The elector then votes for the candidate to whom he or she is pledged. The candidate with the largest number of electoral votes wins the Presidency. This indirect method of choosing who fills the highest office in the land may work well but relies on electors fulfilling their pledge and may create distrust in voters. In the election of Bush versus Gore, where each candidate was declared the winner at different intervals, confidence in the system was severely strained. Greater transparency and clarity in the system might create greater trust in the voting public and greater confidence in the outcome. Further, the question raised earlier regarding the motives of democratic leaders that value gain more than morality, is likely to lead to distrust in the population. Leaders motivated by wealth are susceptible to temptation and may not be trusted to do the right thing. A system like that electoral system used in U.S. presidential elections is not consistent with Plato’s vision on two levels. First, the average individual may not have the wisdom to be involved in the appointment of a leader and second, potential leaders’ abilities should be carefully and objectively scrutinized before nomination. Those individuals that Plato described as “guardians” are the only ones with the knowledge, wisdom and virtue to run a just city. They are the ones with the education and the thirst for knowledge to make decisions based on morals rather than emotions.

54

Moreover, of all the guardians, one particular philosopher is needed to govern the city: the philosopher-king. In the Platonic system, guardians were subjected to several tests in order to determine which of that select group could be that king. The most important test was their grasp of the idea of the “Form of the Good” (described by Socrates as “beyond being”- the origin of life). Through their understanding of this idea, the selected guardian would reach the highest level of knowledge and be capable of becoming the philosopher-king. This ruler was described as the supreme ruler who is at the top of a hierarchy, followed by the auxiliaries, and finally the producing class. For Plato, this described the perfect society—a leadership capable of, and a system designed to optimize the happiness of its citizens. The strength of Plato’s political vision is not dissimilar from that of a democratic, capitalistic system in that it recognizes the strength of reward to motivate behavior. Where it differs is that that the guardians were not to be rewarded with private wealth, given their natures (carefully selected individuals) their reward was what they most desired, that is truth and wisdom. Such a city was designed to be free of corruption. The auxiliaries, whose primary desire was for honor, act as helpers to the guardians and police the producing class who are those who desire gain. All parts of the city are rewarded with what they most desire and each sector’s desire guarantees the overall happiness of all. These rewards are not monetary, as there is no money in the city, thereby removing a major source of corruption. A potential strength of a Republic as envisioned by Plato is that it is governed by a small group. With few in leadership roles, it is easy to congregate, set an agenda and come to a united agreement. This government of small numbers allows for order and unity. Weaknesses of the Platonic Ideal and of Democracy The weakness of Plato’s vision is that it requires exceptionally high standards for the moral nature of human beings. In this view, Plato puts

55

a great deal of emphasis on the soul as rational and assumes that people, who choose occupations based on their desires, will be just. What about those who use their passions to deceive and manipulate? For instance, “Machiavellians…check their passions so that they can practice even greater injustice” (Boyle, 2007). According to Plato’s doctrine, given that they are following the desires of their rational soul, they must be behaving in a just manner. Another weakness of this doctrine is that it puts too much power in the hands of a selected few. It is dangerous to allow so few to govern so many. Without the checks and balances seen in a democratic society, an environment of tyranny is fostered. In contrast, a weakness of democracy is that the masses are given the ability to govern the country. As a group, they are susceptible to a “group think” mentality; voting based on the collective mentality rather than individual ideals. Economic gain is central in a capitalist society and will influence people’s decision making. The group may vote based on emotions rather than thought. Also, a large number of people may be unable to focus on one agenda since different people have different ideals, agendas and motivations. That said, it may be safer to leave power in the hands of the many rather than the hands of the few and collectively people may object to that which seems tyrannical. Plato’s doctrine seems to center around “theocracy…militarism, nationalism, hierarchy, liberalism, totalitarianism, and the complete disdain of economic structures of society” (Boyle, 2007). A republic such as this has never existed, making it an ideal. The dilemma with idealism is that it is counter-intuitive to reality. Ideals may not function in reality. They serve more as a moral compass than an actual function basis of governance. So what is the solution? The best form of governance is that which combines idealism and realism. What Is the Ideal Form of Governance? Is the best form of governance the original form of democracy, as mapped by the founding fathers, grounded by economic realities regarding the greed of some individuals, rather than the democracy of today where unfettered capitalism creates periodic crisis? The current
56

interpretation of democracy appears to work better for some members of society than others and often democratic ideals are sacrificed (again for some) in order to accommodate the so-called free markets which appear to be freer for some then they are for others. The founding fathers believed that in an ideal society those who own property, have an income and meet age requirements, should govern the country and fight its wars. The reason is that they are the individuals who have the most to lose. In today’s society, the vast majority of these people would be the middle class. They pay the majority of the nation’s taxes and own a large proportion of its land. Because of this, the middle class would fight harder in wars and choose a leader whose policies are best for the collective. Following this argument, the poor should not vote because they may not truly be informed about politics and have less to lose should poor decisions about leadership be made. Their primary concern is likely to be to vote for leaders who would distribute more aid to them. Again reality intrudes on such an argument. The middle class shows no sign of an inclination to sign up for military life to defend their way of life. Rather they are content to allow the poor to do so. And the middle class is no less likely to vote to promote their own welfare than the poor, regardless of what might be in the best interests of the nation overall. Relegating the poor to the sidelines of power raises the specter of racism as well, an ongoing American problem. Poverty is frequently identified with black and Hispanic citizens and a larger proportion of those citizens are likely to be poor. The ideal of democracy, as originally envisioned, would serve to amplify the problems of racism, alienate a large group of minority families from the political process and further drive a wedge between the races. The reality of economics again intrudes on the historic democratic ideal. Conclusion In modern America, it is best that all people participate in their society’s governance. In spite of Plato’s arguments and any inconvenience and inefficiency, placing the reins of democracy in the hands of the masses
57

is safer than relegating power to only a few. Plato was correct in requiring that leaders be informed, and equally correct in believing that the uniformed masses are less likely to make good decisions, but the way to address this is not to exclude people. Rather, as part of the political process, people should be educated about all of the facets of the process, as well as about the candidates, their policies and political ideologies. In addition to education about the candidates and the process, the population requires a more general education in order to allow it to follow its desires, in terms of career and the contribution that each individual might make to society. As in The Republic, allowing people to perform jobs which best suit their desires would give each individual a stake in the welfare of the nation overall, allowing for a more efficient use of labor resources and a motivation for all members of society to work for the collective good of the whole. Given the economic realities of capitalism, where some have resources to manipulate the government in their own best interests, modern democracy requires some reining in of free markets. The reality of greed and the existence of those who would put their own desires before the welfare of the nation overall, necessitate a government that regulates those who control more resources. In other words, economic realities cannot be ignored or wished away as in a Platonic ideal. But just as the communist ideal seems somewhat naïve in a modern era, so is the concept of unfettered capitalism as the only efficient economic system. The greatest contribution of Plato to our modern understanding of appropriate governance may be the emphasis the philosopher placed on the power of knowledge and wisdom. Some investment in those attributes might allow for a better informed voter and a more reasonable form of government where democratic ideal is blended with an understanding of economic necessity and the realities of human nature. Perhaps what has become most apparent from the current crisis is that some sense of collective good, as well as a sense of collective responsibility, must be incorporated into the notion of democracy.

58

References
Boyle, B. (2007). Platonic thoughts. Wilson Quarterly. 31, 107-108. Communism: The failure of an utopian system. (2008). ThinkQuest. Retrieved October 25, 2008 from Oracle Education Foundation: http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/00858/en/index.html. Hitler’s foreign policy. (2007). BBC Home. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A828317. Martin, G. (2009). Meanings and origins of phrases and sayings. The Phrase Finder. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html. Okpala, O, A (2009, January, 25) [Interview with Chukwuemeka Okpala] (Unknown), (2008). What is democracy? Retrieved September 24, 2008, from International Information Program Web site: www.usinfo.state.gov

59

References: Boyle, B. (2007). Platonic thoughts. Wilson Quarterly. 31, 107-108. Communism: The failure of an utopian system. (2008). ThinkQuest. Retrieved October 25, 2008 from Oracle Education Foundation: http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/00858/en/index.html. Hitler’s foreign policy. (2007). BBC Home. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A828317. Martin, G. (2009). Meanings and origins of phrases and sayings. The Phrase Finder. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html. Okpala, O, A (2009, January, 25) [Interview with Chukwuemeka Okpala] (Unknown), (2008). What is democracy? Retrieved September 24, 2008, from International Information Program Web site: www.usinfo.state.gov 59

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    In 1776, our Founding Fathers were fighting for everything that is now stated in the Declaration of Independence. Without them, there would be no Democracy today and who knows how society would be if they did not shape the nation. The Founders felt it was essential to state in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution that citizens should have “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. For centuries the freedom and Independence they created for generations to come has been celebrated. Does society understand that the Creators have a deeper meaning than freedom and independence that is celebrated each year on the Fourth of July? However what did the Founders mean when they say “secure the blessings of the Liberty?”…

    • 381 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Gke Task 4

    • 1094 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Steven (2009, December 14). Capitalism and communism - Gilles Dauv | libcom.org. libcom.org. Retrieved January 5, 2013, from http://libcom.org/library/capitalism-communism-gilles-dauve…

    • 1094 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Socialism -vs- Capitalism

    • 366 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Socialism vs. Capitalism Samantha Conti University of Phoenix Comm. /105 –January 12, 2008 The disadvantages of Communism are that people have to be willing to work for the greater good of society, not just themselves. They will not receive all the fruits of their labor, no matter hoe much you work you will always get the same salary. Why would you want to work so hard if you were going to make the same amount of money? Human rights abuses, lack of incentives for progress for individuals which results in a slow progressing society as a whole. Under Socialist theory the individual’s needs are determined and satisfied collectively. Dissent and venturing out on one’s own are not option. Everyone is an employee and tenant of the state. In Communism people have little rights, everything is run by the government resulting in enormous economic failures, including famine, militarism and propaganda to cover-up the systematic failures of the government. Capitalism was developed in Europe in the 19th and early 20th century. Capitalism is an economic arrangement in which people have the individual liberty and the right to own property and to do what they wish with their property as long as it does not harm anyone else. These freedoms set Capitalism apart from all other kinds of economic arrangements. The Capitalist system is based in giving each individual the freedom to better (or worse him or herself). Capitalism signifies means of production. The heart of Capitalism is the producer’s right to make what he wants and the consumer’s right to choose what to buy. A free market economy and free enterprise. The major benefit of Capitalism is private property, the concept that people have the right and privilege to control their possessions as they wish. In a Capitalism economy the role of the government reflect the desire and goals of its citizens. Capitalism societies suffer from poverty too, but in a different way as there is a vastly unequal distribution of wealth (a few…

    • 366 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Economic systems meet the needs of their people by determining what to produce, how to produce it, and who will buy it. Capitalism gives the people the freedom to make their own choices in what to do produce and so forth. On the other hand, a communist economy guarantees certain necessities for the people, such as jobs, food, clothing, and shelter, but the people have little/no choice in what kind. Though these two economic systems are run differently, the government in each will step to fill in the missing pieces of the people’s needs if absolutely necessary.…

    • 614 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx is an economical and philosophical ideology that is centered on communism. Specifically, it is centered on the redistribution of wealth so that everyone in a specified nation or State is completely equal in wealth for the “betterment” of the society. This in theory eliminates the class system and as a result is intended to eliminate the oppression that comes along with the class separation and wage gap. Thankfully, for me this literary piece’s brilliance does not come simply from Marx’s economic ideals but instead it comes from the simple fact that it exists at all. What challenges me and forces me to strive towards betterment is that the Communist Manifesto serves as a reminder to me that it is…

    • 262 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    marx and carnegie

    • 1118 Words
    • 4 Pages

    By eliminating the gap between rich and poor, Marx believes Communism should replace the economic system of Capitalism. In his perspective, he claims, “They have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite” (Marx 476). Because he sees the Capitalist system exploits workers who are unfairly treated, he asserts that the proletarians should become the ruling class. The principle of Communism is the ideology of collectivism. Marx states, “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society: all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation” (470). This means that no private property should be allowed, and no one has even a less or more power in a Communist society. Because Marx illustrates the property ownership would enhance greed, and ambition to win in the…

    • 1118 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Marx and Nietzsche

    • 4031 Words
    • 17 Pages

    Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible. He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes violence is necessary to reach the state of communism. This paper will reflect upon these two topics: the relationship of the individual and society, and the issue of violence, as each is portrayed in the manifesto.…

    • 4031 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin are all infamous dictators between WWI and WWII. They were welcomed by their people as they were looking for hope. They wanted their countries to be powerful, and get out of the great depression. The citizens of these countries were hungry and hopeless, and were seeking positive changes. All of these dictators promised a better future, however they had evil ideas with the intentions to rule as a dictatorship.These dictators were able to come to power because they acknowledged the people’s anger and distress, promised to improve the economy and to build a powerful country again.…

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Should England convert to a different government or stay as a Constitutional Monarchy? Every person believes in a type of government, some people believe in democracy, and some people republican government, and many people believe in many more types of government. What form of government do you believe in? Well, I postulate England should tolerate the Representative Democracy government. Representative Democracy is in a higher quality than Constitutional Monarchy.…

    • 370 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The statement holding that “in all societies power is ultimately economic power” is arguable, and depending on what theoretical perspective we choose to stand on, it can be supported or strongly rejected. Under a Marxist perspective, for example, power is above all, economic power.The power over others applied by those who own or control the means of production, as a consequence of the process of capitalist development. The Marxist political economy (scientific Marxism) accounts for power as fundamentally deriving from the capitalist system, and therefore, all questions regarding how plural, diverse societies produce conflict and seek ways to coexist together are transformed into questions about economic relations. Moreover, under this approach, states do not have power of their own but express more fundamental interests under the control of ruling classes. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx proposes that “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the affairs of the burgeoisie”. That is, political power is reduced to requirements of capitalist stability and class domination. Therefore, all…

    • 1200 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Despite popular belief, The United States of America is, in fact, not a democracy according to the true meaning of the word. America is in actuality a republic. Although it is often referred to as a democracy, a democracy in its truest form is a nation in which the people do the actual voting on the issues at hand. A true democracy would place the power completely in the hands of the people, which can prevent matters from being handled in a timely matter. The founding fathers of this country feared a pure democracy after everything they studied had taught them that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths", according to James Madison’s Federalist No.10 document. These types of government allow the people to actually vote directly on every issue that the nation has, which is not the way that the government of America works. It is a country in which the power in somewhat in the hands of the people which is why it is sometimes referred to as a democracy, but in reality the United States is a republic that only acts as a true democracy on a very few select issues that they place on the actual ballots.…

    • 464 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Communism is a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. The idea of communism started in the 19th century by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engals. When communism first started it was an idea of a society based on common ownership of property. That idea eventually turned political and communism turned into a government. There have been communist groups in Cuba since the early 1920’s and it eventually grew into the only political party in the country. Over the years there have been many debates on what is the goal of communism in Cuba. The majority of people believe that communism is an evil political group that doesn’t give the citizens any rights. People that believe in communism think it’s a good government because all the citizens of the country are treaty fairly. In this paper I will debate the views of why some people believe that communism is a good government and also the views of why some people believe that communism is a bad government.…

    • 2579 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    One of our Founding Fathers, John Adams, explained why a pure democracy was not chosen in this quote, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide” (Democracy or a Republic). The Founding Fathers used a great amount of thought and consideration to determine what type of government should be practiced, because both ideas are dissimilar sparking different views from different factions of people. A Democracy and Republic are relatively thought of being almost mirrors of each other, but each nature of government has its own benefits and drawbacks that…

    • 628 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Modern political economic theory and philosophy can be greatly attributed to the works of two men who seemingly held polar opposite views on the subject. Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher, published his most well known work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776 and is most often associated with the ideas and principles of the political economic system known as Capitalism. At the other end of the spectrum is Karl Marx; the German philosopher most often associated with Communism and the author (or co-author) of The Communist Manifesto. This paper seeks to discuss the core differences in their respective political economic philosophies with regards to what economic value is and what the role of government should be in their versions of political economy. This will conclude with the argument that while Smith's work had laid the foundation for modern economic philosophy, it was Marx who would ultimately leave the most significant impression upon the world with his revolutionary ideas.…

    • 2054 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    I will discuss the concept of a Republic, also known as a Representative Democracy. The Openstax American Government textbook describes a Democracy as a political system in which people govern themselves (pg. 8). This system can come in the form of a Representative Democracy or a Direct Democracy. Direct Democracies are ones in which the citizens themselves participate directly in making laws (pg. 14). This type of government occurred in Ancient Athens. The United States Government, on the other hand, comes in the Representative Democracy form. This means that, instead of directly creating laws, the citizens choose representatives that do this for them (pg. 13). President Donald Trump is now one of those representatives. His job is to represent…

    • 405 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays