European History: Marxism and Darwinism

Chad McKeegan Mr. Horner AP European History 10 April 2013 Marxism Essay brio for Europeans during the 1800s wholly contained dickens possibilities of scotch welfare because, as Marx would note, the wealth was not any bit distributed amid the social classes. The majority of the wealth was obtained by the upper class or throng with power, such as caper tycoons as a pull up stakes of the free-enterprise(prenominal) economy that existed.Based on the paintings presented, Marxism theorists would exemplify that the economical differences between the twain families is a result of class conflict, but favorable Darwinists would present that differences are primarily caused by their biological mischiefs to the environment. At a glance people tend to associate Marxism as grassroots communism, but it was Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles ideologies of the proletariat evolving monastic order into unmatched of economic and social equality that last developed into what people comm only announce to as Communism.Marx and Engles believed that a proletariat diversity was required in order to deposit the base line for a commie society, which is further explained in the Communist Manifesto. In contrast Social Darwinists philosophize close to a survival of the fittest society, in which individuals whom fetch environmental advantages will obtain economic and social advantages, and those at a detriment will f on the whole off the ladder.Both Marxism and Social Darwinism are based around in any antithetical ideals, but both philosophies do not expurgate the ideologies needed to save a stable society. Upon analyzing the contrasted paintings it is evident that on that point are major economic differences between the two families. When examining the painting of the pissed European family the degree of wealth is clearly discernible in both the environment and the people.The wealthy family seems to be surrounded by versatile items of wealth, such as paintings , ritzy furniture, realise curtains, and the prestigious clothing they wear all contribute to the expression of content macroscopic on their faces. In contrast the disadvantaged family is clustered together with their several children because it was necessary for the children to work in order to fuck off manageable income.This painting in picky expurgates a vicarious feeling of suffer and misery, which is clearly visible in every family members face. Marxist theorists would beseech that the wealthy family can afford terrific items and live peacefully every day, temporary hookup the short(p) family struggles because there was an incredibly queer statistical distribution of wealth. Based on the dig theory, the worker is cheated of the value his labor creates, which the first base wages of workers meant the threat of over production, vomit in goods, and depression.The poor family cannot earn enough property to comfortably live day to day because the corporate business owners and those of nobility do not pay the workers enough, and siphon all of the accumulated wealth. Social Darwinists would analyze the two paintings and immediately notice that the poor family is of different race. Social Darwinists would then conclude that the poor family lacked the intelligence and societal skills because their biological differences put them at an environmental disadvantage.This environmental disadvantage would be considered the primary reason the slight fortunate family cannot prosper. The Social Darwinian ideals ultimately gave rise to the phrase survival of the fittest, which accurately explains the original Darwinian concept of certain(prenominal) species ability to survive and mate as a result of their biologically indomitable environmental advantages. Social Darwinism, which was a binding concept during the 1800s, no longer has a place in modern society considering that most civilizations are based on equal opportunity for success.Upon analyzing the two paintings Marxism theorists would signal that the social and economic differences between the two families is largely the result of an unequal distribution of wealth, and Social Darwinists would believe that biologically unconquerable environmental advantages is the cause of the vast infract between the wealthy and the poor. The issue associated with both philosophies is that each concept largely benefits only one group of individuals, which exemplifies the impossibility of a utopian society.