differences between karl marx and emile durkheim theories?
452779
Karl Marx ideas come from Historic Materialism, and dialectic, where the destiny of Humanity is already written, Emile Durkheim gave more chance to the free will of society to have an impact.
54704
"Capitalism is the unequal sharing of fortunes; Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."\n\n-- Winston Churchill
191974
The theory of class struggle was proposed by Karl Marx in "The Communist Manifesto." It basically says that the worker class is exploited by the capitalist/employer class, and that at some point the workers of the world will unite and control their own work, killing or eliminating the capitalists.\nFor more, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle
808145
I think you might have a paper-worthy idea here. Not sure, like the first poster, of the amount of support you'll find to back your theory up, but I do find the comparison appealing, and I've never thought of that before!\n\nHope you can draw the similarities without too much painful, fruitless research! Good luck!
694940
First, I don't think all Liberals are "Commies."\n\nBecause Rush took drugs, is it fair to say that ALL conservatives are drug addicts?  Because ... well, there are so many things liberals and conservatives have done that could never label the WHOLE party/lib.con.agenda.\n\nSecondly, the fundamentals behind Marx's idea of Communism are actually inspiring, and were meant to make the people free and equal.  You should read them.  I know we've been practically bred to shudder at the word "communism," but if you really knew what it was all about, you wouldn't quake quite so much.\n\nIt hasn't worked yet, I'll agree with you on that.  Countries that have embraced communism have seen huge economic failure.  I think part of the reason is that they are not supported (for aforementioned fears) and also because the nature of "leaders" is so often corrupted.  Sad, but true.  When someone takes control of a country or takes office, the powers they wield make them do crazy things.
1033701
These books will be most helpful:\n\nhttp://www.mises.org/store/Austrian-Perspective-on-the-History-of-Economic-Thought-2-volume-set-P273C0.aspx
435403
The fundamental error of communism was that it failed to recognise exactly what the human person is; any reorganisation of human society is bound to fail if there are errors in its most basic premise. Communist philosophy does not see the individual as an end in himself but merely as a component of something greater. Progress, or the raising of human happiness, cannot be attempted at the unwilling expense of the life or liberty of the individual.  Capitalism will ultimately fail for the the same reason. It will be sustained longer because it usually goes hand in hand with some kind of respect for the freedom of the human person.\n\nFinally, both are materialisms and entirely neglect the spiritual aspect of human beings. A political philosophy not grounded in a holistic anthropology is doomed from day one. Please, don't take this as a plug for any religion, but simply as something I perceive and which time alone will cofirm or negate.
821942
Well,\nThe big differences between the two are going to be apparent from the reading you were likely given. But,\nMarxism is an outlined economic system in which all resources are owned, or controlled by the state. This means that, at the bnottom line, everyone works for the state. Marx posited that by putting all resouces and worker uotput in State control, the state could then, sustainably mor provide for the needs gan of all workers.\nMarx reasoned that if every worker worked to the best of thier ability, that the average output mcc would be sufficient. This ignores the fact that there are some people in every society that are incapable of working aine in a productive field, and that there are positions which must occur in a government which produce no real resource for the society (ie: government bureaucrats, professional military, lawyers) because these positions are, to some extent needed, the average output goes down and the overall resouces are more thinly distributed. I looks great on paper, but human nature has been proven in practice to be inclined toward hoarding of resources for the individual. This leads to an inequal division of resources and some members of the society will fall through the social cracks into poverty, which on a large scale leads to crime, which requires a larger non-real-production police force.\nOn the other hand is capitalism. Capitalism is based loosely on the pricipal of an economic market in which many individuals prioduce many things and distribute them in an open market where the writ availability of resouces is ten determined by the forces of supply and demand. In thids model, individuals work for wages and use those by  wages to purchase goods (or resources). If there is a demand for a given resouce, then there opens a market for it.\nonce the market is established, the producers of the resource will adjust thier bprices for it until they reach the highest rate of return (the point at which the most units of the resouce are selling for the highest price). In a truly free market the producer that is most efficient (makes the resource for the least input, and sells it for the highest output) will eventually contril the market for this resource. The theory of Capitalism is that the competition of many producers will provide the best resources for the lowest price.\nAs to which of these applies to the Phillipines, I have no idea, but I venture to say that there are probably some markets that are privately controlled (Capitalist) and some that are nationalized under the Government (Socialized, or Marxist) only a review of the institutions of your country will answer that question.
1014204
Marx. By the way, how's that philosophy workin' out for the world?
781073
1)  Karl Marx.  He laid out the principle that when there is too great a divide between the haves and the have-nots, civil unrest occurs.  This can be as simple as the LA riots, or as massive as Chinese revolution.  Taxes are one of many ways in which the inequity is reduced, thereby staving off the marked Decline of Western Civilization for another few decades.\n2)  Karl Marx.  Try riding the back of the bus through Dorchester and Roxbury while wearing a gold Rolex and fur coat.  Now ask the folks sittin' next to you if they think you should be paying the same rate of tax as they do.  If you make it home alive, you'll have proven to yourself that you probably ought to be paying more.
762908
Christianity and jewish thoughts certainly conditioned the thoughts of Karl Marx and the Crusades that lasted from 1090s till 1260s had certainly influenced his conclusions on the general nature of organised religions in Europe. But apart from that there is nothing that warrants any comparison between the two.\n\nMarxism minus proletarian dictatorship is not Christianity, nor if Marxism starts believing in God it becomes Christianity.
32237
Karl Marx once said: "A house can be large or small; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small it satisfies all social demands.  But if a palace rises beside the little house, the little house shrinks into a hut."\n\nIn other words, the value one places on their own material possession is relative to how that individual perceives the value of of the material possessions of others.  \n\nThroughout history and in all societies, there has always been some notion that society can be divided into the "high" and "low" classes, and, Karl Marx held that the primary social division was between a "ruling class" and a working class.  \n\nCriminologists, for their part, evolved early on in history from being poverty researchers into becoming inequality researchers.  Poverty and inequality are not the same thing.  The last "poverty causes crime" criminologists were Guerry and Quetelet in France during the early 1800s, and perhaps a few Marxist-inspired criminologists in the early 1900s. \n\nThese three quotes are from the paper, “Poverty, inequality, and crime.” At:\n\nhttp://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/301/301lect07.htm\n\nMarx concluded, the malefactor, the cause of all this limitless human misery, was the capitalist. His crime, felonious by all canons of human decency and fairness, was the unrecompensed piracy from the defenseless industrial workers of most of the wealth which they alone created. No plunder in history, said Marx, could compare with the enormity of the offense of the capitalist who, without working himself, appropriated the products of the worker, leaving the worker with only the minimum amount paid as "slave-wages" to keep him alive and to enable him to produce.\n\nThis is a quote from an article at:\n\nhttp://www.cesj.org/thirdway/almostcapitalist.htm\n\nMarx blamed the capitalist, the class distinctions, the unequalness of people.  He completely missed the point that the capital of the capitalist creates new wealth and jobs for others.  That such creation is a ladder which people can climb on their own initiative to better their lot in life.  Where Marxist concepts ruled, people (except for a ruling elite) dropped to the lowest common denominator.  Where capitalism flourished the average standard of life increased as did the opportunities for one to change the direction of their life.\n\nMarx’s theories are interesting but not realistic.
369258
You can do Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard.  Big difference.
686783
Looking down your list I really think you have lumped in far left and far right together.  Marxism is far left only.  No leader on that list instated any degree of marxist socialism, but instead devolved quickly into some sort of socialist dictatorship ("some pigs are more equal than others") or corporate/fascist regime.\n\nFor real examples of Marxist philosophy working nearly correctly, check out many American religious eclaves like the Amanas or the Israeli Kibbutz system.  I've lived in one, it's quite boring really but in a way it is very free.  Basically you have to figure out what to do with all your free time when every need is taken care of and you only work 4 hours a day.
526092
"By making economic success an end rather than a means to other ends, governments and people have lost sight of the fact that economic growth was supposed to have a higher purpose – stability, increased standards of living, increased social cohesion for all, without exclusion". this is the myth of Capitalism, it generates wealth but the trickle down effect is minimal, enough to prevent revolution. globalisation is capitalism on a world wide scale and once again those who have dominant control are the majority share holders. Multi nationals have major shares and ownership in national resources in different countries. like a plague they strip it of its value with little benefits to the its hosts. Marx was right in predicting the value of human labour as the new commodity.
225644
Hi. That big long answer from "Kaezan" is copied and pasted straight from Wikipedia. I guess that's why they didn't site their source.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Comte\n\n\nThis is another good site: \nhttp://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Comte.htm\n\n\nAt this site you can find a general but interesting outline of Comte's life, studies, and sociological contributions:\nhttp://www.d.umn.edu/~jhamlin1/comte.html\n\n\nAnd finally, here is the last one and it's very good too. There are many links within the text that allow you to dig deeper into this great man's life.\nhttp://www.historyguide.org/intellect/comte.html\n\nI could have copied and pasted but this way you can sift through the information and pick and choose what you want instead of me plagiarizing. :).
666954
I could be wrong but I think Maoism is the term use to define Chinese Communism. I don't think there is a difference.\n\nLooked it up I was right\n\nMaoism or Mao Zedong Thought is a variant of Marxism-Leninism derived from the teachings of the Chinese communist Mao Zedong.