Marxism Vs. Capitalism

Theories of Social Change Marxism versus Capitalism Allen Carn August 21, 2009 PREFACE Before you begin reading this socio-economic commentary, I want to take the time to forewarn you that this paper was written in a manner to fulfill a college requirement. For those who just want to get to the point, skip to the Relevance portion of this paper. It captures all of the lessons learned from the first two sections and then uses it to evaluate the policies of Barrack Obama, his Administration, and the legislation coming from Congress. However, if you have the time, I would suggest winding your way through the Supposition and Research Analysis portions of this paper. They should provide clarity to any cited references and paraphrased passages found in the Relevance portion of this paper. In this commentary, I will evaluate the prevalent theories in socio-economic development in regards to Marxism and its variants versus the Free Market and the concept of Capitalism. In the supposition component, a synthesis of the major socio-economic theorists provides a foundation for determining the expectations on how an individual develops within a Marxism/Socialism or Free-Market socio-economic system. These theories provide a sounding board in reviewing the various journal articles listed in the annotated bibliography of the research analysis portion of this commentary. In the relevance component, the essential theories and current research will be used to analyze the policies of the Obama Administration. The design of this commentary was to provide students and future voters an understanding of the most empowering system for future prosperity. ABSTRACT Supposition In regards to theories of social change, the supposition portion of this article will examine the theories and actions of Bradford, Marx & Engels, and Weber. The examination will review the authors in relation to three questions. The first question will look at individual responsibility and promoting a free society. The second question will analyze the process by which the individual becomes a productive member of a social economic system. The last question will compare the strengths and limitations of each system while it promotes social change. That analysis will incorporate input from other authors to build an established academic claim in regards to the primary theories of Marxism and Capitalism. ABSTRACT Research Analysis The Research Analysis portion of this Commentary required an annotated bibliography of 16 research articles followed by a literature review of at least 15 pages. The process of selecting these articles focused on peer-reviewed journals, which related to the concepts of socialism, the free market, and potential impacts. The annotated bibliography offers a quick summary, critique, and value of each article. The literature review assesses the relevance of the theories noted in the Supposition portion of this Commentary. In doing so, the paper evaluates the concepts of democratic centralism and the modernizing of Weber‟s central themes. ABSTRACT Relevance In the Relevance portion of this Commentary, a comparative review will be conducted using the theories of Weber, Marx, and include some of the anecdotal evidence as described by Bradford. Together they form the foundation, while the studies noted in the Research Analysis serve as the modern interpretations of the foundation. In the discussion portion of this section, the comparative review will be used to assess the current political environment and policies being launched by United States (US) President Barack Obama and his administration. SUPPOSITION THEORIES OF SOCIAL CHANGE Marxism versus Capitalism Often in the study of social economic systems, the analysis is conducted on a theoretical level with historical notes to suggest success or failure of each system. The goal of this paper is to analyze the social economic (or socio-economic) system of Marxism and its various iterations in relation to capitalism and the free market. Socio-economics, in the context of this paper, is defined as the human interaction in an economic environment. This analysis uses the Plymouth Plantation and the writings of William Bradford as evidence of the successes and failures of each. The recorded events of the Plymouth Plantation are used due to the theoretical concepts attempted during the life and death struggle that played a major role in the development of the plantation and what would become the United States of America. Specifically, this analysis focuses on the plantation starting out as a communal effort. Eventually, it had to incorporate free market concepts in order to maximize an individual‟s potential in order to survive. This paper also analyzes the writings of Bradford, Marx & Engels, and Weber as a basis to determine the role of the individual to affect change. In addition, these analyses are used to determine how the individual fits within an established social economic system, and the strengths and weaknesses of the two primary socio-economic systems. The Individual’s Role In this portion of the supposition, the individual‟s role was examined in the context of the writings of Marx & Engels, Weber, and the practical application situation in which individuals were forced to make life or death decisions as described by William Bradford and others who survived the initial years at the Plymouth Plantation in the early 1620‟s. It was the intent of the author to use specific details and inferences that suggested what an individual was expected to do to invoke social change. There was neither a right nor a wrong way to accomplish this task. There was only what did happen and what was intended to happen. In determining the relationship between individual responsibility and the promotion of a free society, according to Marx and Engels, the answer requires an understanding of the designated class that a person was assigned to within the constraints of a Marxist system. Marx and Engels describe the „revolutionist‟ within the proletariat as an intellectual “Puritan, smitten with guilt if he partakes of fleshy pleasures and corrupts the purity of his consecration” (1959, p. xii). That passage implied that those who partake in the class struggle to impose Marxism or Communism on the bourgeois to be religious in nature. This religious concept becomes implicit when Lewis Feuer notes in the introduction to the „Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy’ by Marx and Engels, that Marxism was “the first secular world religion. Its dialect was akin to Calvinist predestination; like other creeds, it had its sacred text, its saying, its heretics, its elect, its holy city. If Marx was its messiah, Lenin was its St. Paul” (1959, p. x). For those who were in the party and promoting the revolution, they were to be revered and praised with religious fervor. The religious hierarchy of Marxism required individuals to make sacrifices; however, this was not their primary task since they were also expected to coordinate and direct the general proletariat. Those individuals found in the general proletariat, perform a similar yet different role since they were the true source of the revolution‟s power as it changed society. These individuals were expected to make the necessary sacrifices in order to promote change. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. xi) According to Marx, the general proletariat can be summed up as the potentially eternal exploited tools of the bourgeois. It was in this exploitation, that the proletariat‟s angst and radical desire to avenge wrongs made against them were found. (Giddens, 1971, p. 8) This desire to right the historical wrongs included open combat of various forms to overthrow those who have been deemed enemies of the party. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 19) Those in the proletariat required to make the ultimate sacrifice became martyrs and thereby sources of inspiration for future generations. If the individual was determined to be in bourgeois class, the elite upper class, or somewhere in between promoting something other than the edicts of the party, they were to be despised and targets of the revolution since they had wronged and exploited proletariat. Interestingly, some non-union individuals, who believed they were a part of the proletariat or working class, found themselves targets of the revolution since the grass root organization of the revolution was typically the (trade) unions. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 16) Another unique quirk of the Marxist ideology was that those individuals who were subscribed to be in “the „dangerous class‟, the social scum, that passively rotting mass... [will be] prepared for the bribed tool of reactionary intrigue” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 18). Marx does not say who or where this „bribed tool‟ should be used, but one can only assume that this tool would be used against the proletariat as well as the bourgeois as a means of control. The theoretical process in which the individual can affect social change actually goes through several iterations before a group of worker‟s issues consolidates and eventually becomes a national movement. From there, a nationalized movement can be spread to other nations. However, the starting point begins with laborers who want some measure of control and equality in regards to their daily lives. Eventually, this building anguish leads to the formation of a local union. The unions start out by operating independently of one another and at times can be at odds with another union. During these times, the bourgeois can use proletariat labor to gain market share over or destroy another competing bourgeois company and union. Over time, the number of unionized proletariat swells as industry increases and large amounts of people will consolidate around metropolitan production centers. It is at that time unions become regional as they amalgamate into larger ones according to the workforce‟s proficiency. Unions only become nationalized after communication and transportation networks become available in order to escalate local issues into a national movement. Once nationalized, the infighting ceases and the revolution focuses its attention on the true enemies of the proletariat. As a result, the bourgeois have to make a decision, join or die. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 15-17) During this process, individuals morph into a community of equals. The concept of individuality must be “despised and cast out” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 23). In addition to individuality, private property becomes another casualty since it was considered a part of the community. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 21) Since Marxism is a secular religion, there remains no need for any type of known state religion. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 28) Furthermore, the concept of marriage and family are disposed of since it exploits the labor of women and children. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 24 & 26) Finally, the family unit is deemed unnecessary. The community or regional social organization is then mandated to educate all children. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 25) What every individual must realize is that for the revolution to be successful in the liberation of oppressed peoples, the concepts previously noted must be abolished. The individual does not exist; they are merely a part of a much larger organization. Their efforts are to be maximized and controlled by the local organization that serves the party. The party has the best intentions of the overall good for everyone, because the revolutionist and intellectuals serve the proletariat. Weber had a different tact for the individual to become arbiter of social change. Unlike Marxism, Weber focuses solely on the acts of the individual and their relationship with their God. Weber answers the question of what is the relationship between individual responsibility and the promotion of a free society. He does this first by noting the historical religious utilitarian nature of life and then by describing the need to maximize an individual‟s time spent in the pursuit of a „calling‟. (Weber, 1958, p. 180) Weber captured this religious foundation combined with the concept of a calling in the title of his book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. These concepts eventually lead individuals to believe that it is sinful to waste time.(Weber, 1958, p. 157) From this grew the time was money concept in regards to religion, where “it was infinitely valuable because every hour lost was lost to labour for the glory of God” (Weber, 1958, p. 157). The method in which the individual serves God and society in general, which Weber lays out, was taken from the writings of Benjamin Franklin. Weber listed several quotes from Franklin that have been condensed in to the following list. They were: a. “Remember, that time is money…” (as cited in Weber, 1958, p. 48). b. “Remember, that credit is money…” (as cited in Weber, 1958, p. 48). c. “Remember, that money is of the prolific, generating nature” (as cited in Weber, 1958, p. 49). d. “Remember this saying, „The good paymaster is lord of another man‟s purse‟” (as cited in Weber, 1958, p. 49). e. “The most trifling actions that affect a man‟s credit are to be regarded” (as cited in Weber, 1958, p. 49). Even the slightest actions can have negative consequences. f. “Beware of thinking all your own that you possess, and of live accordingly” (as cited in Weber, 1958, p. 50) credit has been an illusion of ownership. This list spoke to several different things; however, the key items included responsibility, maintaining good work habits, having a positive attitude, and living within an individual‟s means. Most importantly, only through responsibility did an individual increase his or her freedom. (Weber, 1958, p. 50) Weber went on to say, Franklin preached utilitarianism, in which the individual does the greatest possible good by maximizing his or her resources. (Weber, 1958, p. 52) This utilitarianism not only provides direction in action, but it also allows each individual to assume responsibility to take leadership and control of his or her own actions. As the individual develops the ability to act responsible within society, then their leadership skills develop proportionally as they act with “clarity of vision”. (Weber, 1958, p. 69) Furthermore, if the individual is virtuous and ethical, then they can “free oneself from common tradition, a sort of liberal enlightenment” (Weber, 1958, p. 70) to a higher plane of awareness. Regardless of where an individual is on the path of self-awareness, one key concept comes into play, and that is the concept of a calling. That idea was something brought forward from the age of the „Reformation‟ (Giddens, 1971, p. 127). Weber considered a calling, one of the most critical parts of the „spirit of capitalism‟. (Weber, 1958, p. 180) A calling is something that an individual is extremely adept at doing as he or she lives in moral confines of their religion. It also can be called a life‟s passion that brings the individual great joy in doing. A calling can be as simple as going to work and performing one‟s duties to the best of their ability. The calling is a mental state where the individual performs at higher level. It is at this higher level where a selfless commitment to duty and the task at hand provides the highest potential for spiritual and monetary reward. (Weber, 1958, p.62) In addition, as a person labors in the pursuit of a calling, it is intended to be spiritually cleansing and ward off the negative temptations of life. (Weber, 1958, p.158) As Giddens pointed out, “Thus labour in the material world, …, becomes attributed with the highest positive ethical evaluation. The possession of riches does not provide a man with any sort of exemption from the divine command to labour devoutly in his calling” (1971, p. 129). In this concept, if an individual acquires a certain amount of wealth as the fruit of their labor while not doing anything unethical or immoral, then that is seen as healthy. Ending up poor or failing in the pursuit of a calling is deemed unhealthy. (Weber, 1958, p. 163) The only time acquiring wealth is deemed to be bad is what it allows the individual to do in their free time or the fact that their wealth generated so much free time that the individual becomes unproductive in the eyes of the Lord. (Weber, 1958, p. 157) Throughout this entire process as laid out by Franklin and the pursuit of a calling, Weber alerts the reader to the dichotomy that existed between working towards a calling and practicing true religion. (1958, p. 183) This dichotomy will be explained further in the other sections of this paper. While Marx, Engels, and Weber used historical references to support their theories about social change, William Bradford and the rest of the individuals involved in the Plymouth Plantation lived it. Even though they sought religious freedom, they were unwittingly involved in a social change experiment that would have lasting repercussions and provide evidence that supports theorists Marx, Engels, and Weber in various ways. In answering the question what is the relationship between individual responsibility and the promotion of a free society, William Bradford and the others had a taste of both, the pooled communal sharing of resources and the unbridled freedom of the free market. In answering the question, it required a brief analysis of their religious beliefs, the communal contract used to start them out, and a letter of advice that understood the arduous task that the Plymouth group signed to complete. The starting point for the metamorphous was the same starting point for the other authors noted in this paper, religion. Unlike the secular religion of Marx, the Puritans of Plymouth Plantation were more in line with the Protestants as noted by Weber. The key similarities were the concept of individual freedom and responsibility. Capitalism or the free market ideas would come later after they arrived in the New World. The Puritans sought freedom of religion, but they also found freedom from the Gospel as Weber suggested. Through hard work and acting responsible, the Puritans would persevere against religious persecution in search of a calling. An example of the trials and tribulations of the Puritans in their quest for religious freedom can be found in paragraphs 61 through 63 where some of Puritans were betrayed and arrested. (Bradford, 1908) Through religious persecution, the Puritans‟ perception of freedom was honed. Despite the lessons learned, the Puritans were forced to start out as a community of like-minded religious individuals in search of a new life. This community concept was instilled in the individuals that would make the trip to the New World as they fled from England to the Netherlands. With their belief in the Lord, they would endure trials and tribulations. They also developed an unbreakable bond that would link them together going forward, for better or for worse. Their lives were in each other‟s hands. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 42) Unfortunately, the Puritans were not alone in their voyage to the new world. They would have other adventurers in their numbers that had different belief systems. This difference in personal responsibility and societal performance expectations led to confusion and inefficiency that the agreed upon communal system would exacerbate. Before departing, a contract was penned with the financiers in July of 1620. This contract would serve as the conceptual basis in which a communal organization was to be set up in the New World. The first two clauses of the contract describes how individuals in noted contract were proportioned shares; moreover, it grouped the “adventurers and planters” as equals. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 73 & 74) The third clause in the contract was critical; it stated that at the end of seven years, all remaining items in „common stock‟ were to be proportioned out as previously noted in the first two clauses. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 75) The next clause instructed all able-bodied people to take up specific duties once the community was established. Interestingly, confusion would creep into the contractual agreement with this clause, because it implied that an individual was only expected to do one function or specific functions within the community. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 76) The fifth clause was critical as well; it stated that all profits and capital were to be split equally and any debt was to be absolved. This clause limited the extra incentive needed to survive in extreme situations. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 77) Clauses six through nine noted how profits and stores were to be divided in regards to individuals settling at Plymouth between the maiden voyage and the closing of the contract. More specifically, the clauses took into consideration the children that come of age during the life of the contract, the children that do not come of age during the contract, and it accounted for the death of individuals. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 78 - 81) The final clause of the contract defined what was expected to go into common stock. In addition, it allowed all individuals to have equal access to “meate, drink, apparell, and all provissions" (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 82). This contract had a majority of the components that Marx would have defined as communism. The contract did not contain anything about religion; all work was deemed equal; wives, children, and servants, were provided for in the contract; all provisions came from a communal store with equal access; and it implied that all individuals involved in the endeavor were societal equals. Finally, the last piece of evidence was a letter of advice found in a compilation of letters and journal entries compiled by Bradford and Winslow. Both were participants in the Plymouth Plantation. The letter‟s relevance to this topic and question was simple. It made suggestions about the survival of the expedition, and it ultimately suggested that a leader might have to do what is right for the group in spite of its wishes or in this case, a previously penned contract. Furthermore, the letter also instilled some democratic reasoning that was not covered in the contract. The letter was written in a manner that only Nathanial Morton knew who the original author was because it was signed only with the initials I.R. The fact that this letter survived many cold and arduous days reinforces its importance. It often referenced God as being a guiding force in the decisions of individuals. The letter offers five points of advice. The first point is that the group should repent daily for sins known and trespasses committed unknowingly. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2) The author of the letter (IR) knew that the voyage would be difficult and dangerous, so it would be imperative that everyone maintained a civil attitude and focus inward for self-improvement. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2) In the next point, IR talks about group interactions and the importance of patience, not being easily offended, and not wanting to offend others. Despite the religious overtones, this point implies that the group would fail if there were bickering and resentment in the group. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2) Point three is interesting since it focused on “… how unperfected and lame is the work of grace in that person, who wants charity a to cover a multitude of offenses” (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B3). The central theme here is that an individual that continually focuses on complaining about all of the minor offenses has lost sight of the group‟s needs to survive. In addition, the continual search for charity wasted the energy and time of the individual and lessened his or her utilitarian responsibility to the group. To compound the inefficiency of one person complaining, the individual‟s complaining begins to break down the bonds that hold the group together, and the overall group efficiency deteriorates. In the fourth point, IR warns about avoiding the “deadly plague”. This plague is the potential abuses of complacency and a lackadaisical attitude in seeking comfort that may present themselves in an individual or a group, thereby hindering the overall effectiveness of the total group (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B4). IR does not note any specifics on the potential abuses, but he or she asked the leaders of Plymouth to pay special attention to prevent the disastrous consequences. Moreover, this became a key and important issue during the second year of the plantation and eventually caused the elected leaders to change Plymouth‟s overall socioeconomic structure. The final point concentrated on civil government and the responsibility of leadership. IR thought that since there was not anyone of “special eminence” making the trip it would be wise to form a civil government (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B5). People selected for government positions should have characteristics of selflessness, be an arbiter of good, be good and legally responsible in the administration of laws, and as important, are not swayed by the “foolish multitude” (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B5). This last point was important, because it required leaders to make potentially unpopular decisions for the good of the community. Overall, at the outset of the voyage, there was a combination of factors and beliefs imposed upon the leaders of the voyage. As noted, the religion of the Puritans was at odds with itself when it asked its flock to work towards a calling and the potential escalation in capital. Then there was the contract, it required the planters and adventurers to form the community that had strong communist qualities, and then there was the letter of advice, which opened the door for leaders and individuals to do what is necessary in the eyes of God in order for the community to survive. From an individual‟s standpoint, Marx and Engels comments were in line with what was written in the Puritan contract. On the other hand, the overall religious nature of the pilgrims and the ultimate responsibility of what one individual does was theirs, not the groups‟. This opened the door to social change that would take the group from the concepts of Marx and Engels to the capitalism-free market beliefs of Weber. The Individual and the System This section builds upon the analysis of the socio-economic systems in relation to individual responsibility and the promotion of a free society; it will take things a step farther and answer how an individual is to become a productive member of each socio-economic system. The focus in this section is more on the system versus the individual; however, it does not remove the individual from the equation. Ultimately, the intent is to answer the previously noted question in the context of what it means to the reader to be a productive member of each socioeconomic system. The question‟s relevance can be found in the current trend of this country having moved away from Weber‟s concept of capitalism and moved towards Marx‟s concepts that were inherent in the type of socialism found in Europe. Marx and Engels answer the question of how the individual is to become a productive member of a socio-economic system in two parts. Once a society reaches a point, where it is ready to accept Marxism, Socialism, or Communism, there are two roles that individuals will play in order to become a productive member. The first role occurs during the revolution phase; the role played by most individuals requires them to be submissive revolutionaries fighting for the party‟s supremacy. The second phase occurs after the enemies of the revolution are crushed. It requires the same individual to evolve in becoming a true Marxist and remain continuously obedient to the party. In regards to the second phase, social change at this point is completed and any other necessary changes will be communicated from the party leadership. Even before the first or revolutionary stage began, Marx and Engels noted that the “capitalist stage [was a] necessary prerequisite to the establishment of communism in every modern society” (Giddens, 1971, p. 23). There has to be an enemy in which the revolution can focus their energy; in addition, a capitalist society provides a good socio-economic framework in which to evolve from and eventually take over. As Feuer stated in the introduction to Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy: “Marxism, on the contrary, satisfied the impulses towards hatred and aggression. A religion of pure love has to make some men the bearers of evil. To do the Lord's work against his enemies, to fight the good fight, to “struggle,” as Marx once said, „it's man's reality‟.” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p xii) With an enemy in mind, the proletariat being led by the party initiates the societal revolution. This revolution initially converts private property and bourgeoisie power to public property and power. The goal is to separate capital from production, freeing the individual that makes up the „modern‟ proletariat. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 111) The primary focus in regards to Marx‟s revolution is the elimination of capital. Capital serves as the foundation of the capitalist economy and it is essential for the revolution to eliminate it in order for the bourgeoisie economy to collapse. (Giddens, 1971, p. 34) Since capital is necessary in material and intellectual production, it makes the two dependent upon capital. Thereby, they are also targets of the revolution. (Giddens, 1971, p. 41) In addition to capital, religion becomes another primary target of the revolution. The goal here is to remove the false and misleading religious concept of happiness; this in turn will provide the proletariat an opportunity of „real‟ happiness. (Giddens, 1971, p. 7) The ultimate goal, according to Giddens, is to replace religion with humanism, “whereby the love formerly directed towards God will become focused upon man, leading to a recovery of the unity of mankind, man for himself” (Giddens, 1971, p. 4). The elimination of religion forces the proletariat to realize the lie that they are living while destroying moral character of their enemies. In addition to the two primary targets of capital and religion, there are other targets once the first two have begun disintegrating. Some of the other targets include: The refusal to adhere to laws created using a capitalistic ethos, the elimination of loyalty oaths, the destruction of competing political parties, gaining control of all media sources, elimination of home schooling, disdain and resist anything that prevented the individual from growing intellectually with Marxist ideology, etc. The revolution would become a holistic social change event; furthermore, “modern socialism is nothing but the reflex in thought of this conflict in fact; its ideal reflection in the minds, first, of the last directly suffering under it, the working class” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 91). The revolution is the beginning of all that the individual would ever need to know. The second phase in an individual‟s metamorphous comes after socialism‟s victory over the bourgeois. As the metamorphosis unfolds, the individual becomes a part of society. The metamorphosis becomes complete when the individual loses his or her identity. Communism, Socialism, and Marxism will liberate all people to enjoy the fruits of society as long as the individual “does not subjugate the labor of others” in the process. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 23) A period of enlightenment envelops the people since Marx “assumed that the proletariat would be liberal, friendly to learning, and truly the inheritors of science and art. The middle classes had produced a renaissance in thought and feeling, and Marx was confident that the working class would do likewise” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p.xiv). Since all work is equal, then all personal choice in life is immaterial only as long as they serve the party. To be an individual in a Marxist, Socialist, and Communist system runs contrary to the party's wishes. A single voice must be acknowledged through various regional party levels before it is heard. The individual‟s primary and foremost duty is to serve the party. The party information outlets dictate the ingrained morality, sacrifices are necessary in order to preserve the revolution, the state, and more importantly, the party. “…To all these socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason, and justice, and had only to be discovered to conquer all the world, by virtue of its own power” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 81). Marx‟s thought process in the previous passage appears to be built upon the antiquated philosophies of imperialism, where the absolute truth is actually the stagnation of thought and the expression of freeing the worker is an excuse for world domination. These two phases, the revolutionary and the obedient worker, define the process of how the individual becomes a productive member of the Marxist social economic system that all other central planning systems mimic to one degree or another. To be free and create social change in a Marxist-like system, the main ingredient of capitalism must be present. From that point, class envy and misinformation sow the seeds of revolution. Eventually, it takes the oppressed worker in the capitalist system and turns him or her into a revolutionary partisan. Once the revolution is complete, the revolutionary icon of the struggle goes home to be a worker where they must not be able to take advantage of the labor‟s of others while working for either the state or the party. Weber answered how the individual was to become a productive member of a capitalist social economic system with religious and responsible leadership beliefs. Weber and many other authors were curious about the unique dichotomy in which Western Judeo-Christian religions spawned a work ethic - that if carried out in the correct manner and became profitable - could be viewed as encouraging sinfulness. (Weber, 1958, p. 63) It was at this point Weber injected concepts into his text that guided the businessperson into becoming a responsible leader. “Nevertheless, we provisionally use the expression spirit of (modern) capitalism to describe that attitude which seeks profit rationally and systematically in the manner” (Weber, 1958, p. 64). A good leader that gathers capital through spiritual guidance formed the much-hated bourgeoisie as defined by Marx. In turn, this made them the primary targets of the Marxist revolution. The spiritual guidance came in many forms according to Weber; working hard was equivalent to cold showers and a healthy diet in order to avoid sins of the flesh. (1958, p. 158) Weber continued this line of reasoning, which has evolved primarily through the Protestant religious ranks, when he stated that not working hard in your calling was sinful and the penalty for this sin was not eating. (1958, p. 159) Even more so, to be a devout follower of the faith, an individual must try to take advantage of the opportunities presented to him or her by the divine will of God. If they choose not to then they deny the will of God. (Weber, 1958, p. 162) Giddens noted that Protestants developed a much more rigorous brand of discipline than the Catholics, after the onset of capitalism. (1971, p. 125) Despite the reality, that “Protestantism broke with the monastic ideal of Catholicism”, this monastic idea was a concept that Protestants did not accept (Giddens, 1971, p. 131). In some regards, capitalism was an unintended consequence of those trying to be productive in the eyes of God. Furthermore, if an individual was able to gain more capital than the next, it was considered “Divine Providence”. (Weber, 1958, p. 177) The religious acceptance of working towards a calling allowed individuals the opportunity to excel due to a God given skill, knowledge, system, etc. The assumed expectation was that if they did not succeed they were not trying. Rightly or wrongly, this allowed the individual to tap into their inner passion and expertise in order to gather capital. If it is okay to gather as much capital as possible, where does the individual draw the line at in order to remain pure in the eyes of God? To start with, the individual must have a calling since “A man without a calling thus lacks the systematic, methodical character which is, as we seen, demanded by worldly asceticism” (Weber, 1958, p. 161). Using a calling as a professional goal, the individual must work in order to maximize his or her professional efficiency, because it has the potential to “serve the common good, which was identical with the good of the greatest possible number” of people (Weber, 1958, p. 161). Maximizing resources is a necessary leadership trait of capitalism that makes it self-sustaining and thereby a key mannerism of capitalism. The selection process of leaders that demonstrate that trait is done through a system that “educates and selects the economic subjects which it needs through a process of economic survival of the fittest” (Weber, 1958, p. 55). The controlling mechanism to curb the leader from being predatory is the leader‟s belief in God. The Judeo-Christian moral and ethical ethos guides the leader through the pitfalls of all the deadly sins in a manner that God would approve (Weber, 1958, p. 176 & 177). If a leader or businessperson treats others unethically, then they are to be shunned and cast out. The consequences of continued unethical behavior, defined as “acting in a manner society disapproved, unlawful, not dutiful to the church and the community, or unprofitable”, was that nations and societies would de-evolve and “continually crying out for government aid” (Weber, 1958, p. 65 & 66). In summation, a person in Weber‟s capitalist system was “characterized by a unique combination of devotion to the earning of wealth through legitimate economic activity, together with the avoidance of the use of this income for personal enjoyment” (Giddens, 1971, p. 126). All of this activity was endorsed and condoned by God since the deadliest of sins was determined to be inactivity. Consequently, this had been “rooted in a belief in the value of efficient performance in a chosen vocation as a duty and a virtue” (Giddens, 1971, p. 126). The result was intended to be a self-sufficient individual that acted in accordance of a God fearing responsible leader no matter what their vocation may be, especially since the individual was supposed to be a leader in his or her own personal and family life. Self-leadership has been an essential ingredient of survival in a capitalistic system. The individuals involved with Plymouth Plantation had a unique take on the theories and historical perspectives of Marx, Engels, and Weber. By contract, they were required to start out as a community that had shared labor outputs that were Marxist in nature. However, this communal environment caused confusion, low productivity, and varying work expectations. The inability to be efficient in a hostile environment was counterproductive to the group‟s survival. That reality required the leaders of Plymouth to take action and create a free market atmosphere in order for the community to survive. This next section will take examples as documented by William Bradford and apply them to the question how did the people of Plymouth become productive members of each social economic system. It will note the incidents that lead up to the changes incorporated by the leadership at Plymouth during the leanest of times. It was the winter of 1622 and 1623. Mr. Weston and another group of pilgrims and adventurers had landed in Cape Cod area during the summer 1622. Mr. Weston‟s group was provided with enough provisions to last through the winter. Unfortunately, they squandered the provisions making them dependent upon the Plymouth colony, passing ships, and any friendly Native Americans. (Goodwin, 1920, p. 208) In the dead of winter, Weston made several forays to acquire provisions from the Plymouth colony. The Plymouth colony, having gone through a very light harvest, offered what provisions they could afford. Prior to June of that year, the Plymouth colony was already living on half-rations due to a poor harvest the previous year. (Goodwin, 1920, p. 205) The individuals at Plymouth offered Weston and his group beaver pelts to trade despite their need to use the beaver pelts for much the same reason and there was an actual concern that other individuals at Plymouth might mutiny if they found out what had happened. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 215) Ultimately, Weston became bitter for having to beg for provisions that he thought were to have been shared. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 215) After the second year in row of low harvest yields, the struggling Plymouth colony was not prepared to help any other colonists. Despite this, they offered what they could. Another instance occurred after new settlers to the Plymouth colony were offloaded. The new settlers, not having gone through the trials and tribulations of the first year, had a different set of work priorities and became dependent upon the common stores. For example, on Christmas day a group of new settlers refused to work due to religious reasons, the rest of the colony went out to work in the fields. Upon returning, the majority of the group that stayed back due to religious reasons was found frolicking and playing games in the street. This angered those that worked causing Bradford to castigate those that remained behind. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. 10) Even though this specific issue was never noted to occur again, there was a growing systematic problem that the colonists could not over come. Individuals who had survived the previous winters at the Plymouth colony realized they could no longer honor the contract and maintain a communal organization. Their lives depended on changing the socio-economic structure if they were going to survive. Up until 1623, work was segregated and it did not maximize the population to address seasonal realities that came with collecting resources. Since the colony struggled the first two years, there were several discussions and meetings about improving corn harvests and better crop yields in general. A critical decision was made. Instead of waiting until the end of the seven years, Bradford proportioned out the communal land to individuals for the use of farming as stated in the original contract. The newly proportioned land required the inheritance clause to be altered as well. The need to survive overrode any potential inheritance a sibling may get after the contract expired. This made everyone farmers, since farming was the primary way in which the colony was going to survive. When families and groups of individuals were forced to farm, it made everyone very industrious and maximized the potential output of the colony. Women and children were working in the fields after this decision, because much of their survival was in their own hands and not dependent on the labor of a lesser amount. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 216) This fundamental change from a communal concept to a free market concept was very successful “for it made all hands very industrious” (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 216). The success of going from a communal effort to a free market endeavor had Bradford wondering about the thought process of the ancients. This communal idea, he wrote, “applauded by some of later times; -that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a commone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God” (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 217). This was not the case at Plymouth, “For this comunitie (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte” (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 217). To define labor by sex, age, or any other means was found to be very disconcerting, because some individuals had talents to do much more than the specific tasks they were restricted to perform. They often felt offended, as if they were a slave to the system, disrespected, dependent on the work ethic of others or others less qualified, and it had the unintended consequence of breaking the will of the community. If conditions were different, for instance their belief in God and their leadership was less than it was; chances were the colony would not have survived. (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 217) The social change that occurred when the pilgrims eventually settled at Plymouth required a multi-talented industrious individual to fit within the confines of a communal organization often discussed by Marx and his followers. Due to the struggles with weather, one of the surrounding Indian tribes, low crop yields, the confusion of work duties and loads, and a host of other issues, the colony was slightly improving from year to year. With new arrivals, the colony went from surviving, to the verge of collapse. The communal concept that each individual was required to adhere to was replaced with one that involved free market capitalistic concepts espoused by Weber. The social change that occurred when private property was issued out was the critical step in changing a surviving colony into a thriving colony. In order for an individual to become a productive member in the new Weber like socio-economic system at Plymouth, the individual had to rely on their God given potential and ability to maximize their labor. Strengths and Weaknesses In reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the previously described Marxist and Capitalist socio-economic systems as it related to the individual, the experiences of Bradford and the individuals of Plymouth Plantation will be used to support any or refute any assertions. At Plymouth there were land owners, laborer, and the labor needed to survive. The labor and the laborer to Marx were tools to manipulate in order to unite the laborers and push a revolutionary social agenda. The individual was a resource that needed to be pooled together with other individuals in order to consolidate and build power. In the most callous of terms, the laborer to Weber was an individual that could be treated as nothing more than a piece of machinery to perform labor; however, with opportunity, skill, and hard work the individual could change his status and serve an integral role in society. The focus of this analysis was not to favor one system over another; however, it is to note any inconsistencies in regards to the purported systems as it was compared to a real-life situation. The irony here was that both systems offered its own brand of redemption. However, at Plymouth, redemption was a luxury of the dead. Nevertheless, this section will examine the strengths, the weaknesses, and then apply them to the events at Plymouth. The best socio-economic axiom that describes Marx‟s vision can be found in his Critique of the Gothe Programme, the slogan was “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” (Marx, 1970, Part 1, p 5). However, to get to Marx‟s axiom, there has to be progression socio-economic evolution that required “radical or revolutionary political changes alter the structures (necessary conditions), by virtue of which the mechanisms exist, in this case by expropriating property capital and nationalizing land” (Sayer, 1992, p.112). Sayer‟s comment emphasizes the requirement that capitalism needs to exist before Marxism, Socialism, or Communism can take over. The theory was that as the more capitalism increased, the more the separation between the working class and the business owners grew. (Giddens, 1971, p. 11) The ground in which the revolution was to be grown from was made fertile from this diverse perspective of class and labor. In quoting Marx, Giddens noted, “„the worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more goods he creates. The devaluation of the human world increases in direct relation with the increase in value of the world of things‟” (1971, p. 11). With the defeat of Capitalism, Marxism would return the individual to a naturally creative state while working to improve the newly formed society. (Giddens, 1971, p. 15) It is here that Sayer notes, “antiMarxists are particularly fond of giving enormous prominence to the handful of predictions made by Marx and Engels. Yet compared to their commitment explanation, Marx and Engels took little interest in prediction” (Sayer, 1992, p. 130). To Marx and Engels, the eventual role that Marxism, Socialism, and Communism would play in future events was the natural order of things in human development. With deliverance via revolution, it frees the conscience of the worker from the burden of religion. The focus of this new society would be on humanistic interaction of all people to bring forth a heaven on earth. “As a secular world religion, Marxism furthermore offered its rewards on this earth. Other religions had postponed happiness as he get in another realm, but Marxism could claim to speak for the foreseeable future” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. xi). As previously noted, Feuer made the claim that Marxism is the world‟s first secular religion with its hierarchy, religious sites, saints, and sinners, but to the worker it offered a path of human enlightenment while working for the party that had its rewards on earth. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. x) With the defeat of religion, the ethics and morality that allowed the development of capitalism would collapse as well since it would be unfounded without its religious framework. It was ironic that the followers of Marx, a man that ridiculed ethics in politics, was propped up as a religious ethical icon of their socio-economic system. “Nevertheless, despite his contemptuous rejection of ethical terms, Marx stands out as among the imposing ethical personalities of modern times” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. x). This absence of ethics would be replaced with the humanistic need and laws based on a Marxist society handed down from the core of the party. In the end, the goal of Marxism as it relates to the individual was to stop the exploitation and parasitism of the class system by eliminating anything that was spawned by or was corrupted by a capitalist system. The weaknesses of Marxism are many and most emanate from some of its core beliefs. Marxism can be viewed as an aggressive, socio-economic philosophy that is committed to the never-ending class struggle and the consolidation of power. It is a belief that always searches for the Demon within us all while claiming and demanding love and adoration. The consolidation of power lies within the iron fist grasp of the ever-knowing, ever-caring intellectual. “Marxism, which declared itself the harbinger of a new international order has, in partial fulfillment of its prophecy, polarized the nations into power blocs” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. ix). Some may say it also brought the death of millions of human beings as well. Despite being the first secular religion, the truth of Marxism according to Marx is that “it also offered the pains and sorrows of asceticism” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. xi). In reality, Marx has offered a struggle against one taskmaster only to be replaced with another taskmaster that is intended to be kinder, gentler, smarter, and more understanding of the struggle. One of the key objectives in the Marxist class struggle would be the elimination of classes. According to Sayer (1992), classes as they were before the revolution would not immediately disappear and when they did, they would actually reform in response to the edicts of the state and the party. The classes would reappear in a different manner because of regulations and controlling entities. Instead of capital, information will be the common commodity. In regards to ethics and the controlling of information, as previously noted, Marx despised ethics requiring all the ethical notions of the previous system to be discarded in lieu of historical necessity. However, as Feuer noted in the introduction to Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, Marx‟s “Soviet adherents have used his doctrine of historical necessity to justify an era of repression and denial of human rights” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. ix). In a system where information becomes critical, the factual references to the past will become tainted. The distortion of history becomes another casualty of the revolution, since as Giddens suggested (1971), that socialism was about forgetting the past and looking towards the future. Conversely, Hayek (2007) would argue against ignoring the past saying that the path to Marxism, Socialism, and Communism has been tried before with disastrous consequences for humankind. If Capitalism precedes Socialism, then Socialism precedes Totalitarianism (Hayek, 2007, p.67). One final note, at one point Marx tried to calculate the capital transformation process in volume 3 of Capital. The intention was to mathematically explain the process; unfortunately, Marx reached a roadblock and his mathematical expressions were meaningless since they were dealing “with a hypothetical close systems at a high level of abstraction…” (Sayer, 1992, p. 190). The great irony, with Marx‟s failure to use mathematical logic to explain a critical aspect of his theories, he had to fall back on what the other religions had to use to promote his interpretation of history and a never-ending class struggle looking for world domination, blind faith. In comparing, Marx‟s theories to what occurred at the Plymouth Plantation there were two issues that required the leaders of the plantation to incorporate social change. This social change took the plantation from a Marxist-like society to a more open free market society. One thing to note before going into detail about the issues, in defense of Marx, a majority of the planters were self-sufficient industrious individuals who were accustomed to multi-tasking, which was essential to survival. This could have lead to some of the confusion. Even though multi-tasking can be viewed as an exploitation of labor, it would have been unwise to take a group of individuals schooled in one type of socio-economic system, change their expectations, and then drop them into a life or death situation. With the being said, history is repeating itself in regards to the current direction of the United States. In adding to the confusion, one of the main issues was the prearranged divisions within labor that limited efficiency and potential. The fourth clause of the contract required individuals to take up specific duties in the community, as noted by William Bradford, the clause limited the individual‟s potential and the group‟s efficiency. When the individual had completed their required tasks for the day or week, they were not required to perform other tasks despite having the ability or the potential to do more. According to Bradford, there was attrition due to death and sickness. Those that were capable to do more were forced to ignore the loss of production caused by death or illness since the new task would lie outside of their division of labor. The idea of equal pay for equal work was counter productive to the plantation‟s survival since it emphasized equal inefficiency. Why work more than someone else when you were being paid the same? The next issue builds upon Marx‟s premise that capitalism or a wealth creation structure was needed before Marxism can be implemented. Marxism was never intended to be anything more than a low or no growth society due to bureaucratic control that strangles productivity and potential. This fact was made clear since Marx “does not subjugate the labor of others”. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p 23) What the planters and adventurers eventually realized, “life is a gift not a given” (author unknown). Everyday the people of Plymouth had to get up and survive; it was simple to write in the contract that all of an individual‟s needs would be in a common store. However, maintaining inventory in the common store proved to be difficult for various reasons. As a result, the inventory in the common store became depleted. This problem was exacerbated when another plantation assumed they would have availability of Plymouth‟s common store. The concept of all of Plymouth‟s needs being available in a common store was erroneous to the people of Plymouth. When reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of Weber‟s capitalist theories, the reader was left with a sense of cautious optimism. The optimism comes from Weber‟s use of the word spirit in the title of the book, the spirit was as much about working and performing in society with a self-driven purpose as it did with the religious connotations. On the other hand, caution comes from Weber‟s concern about the increase in capitalism and its potential negative side effects. The next paragraphs will review these strengths and weaknesses; in addition, it will compare them with the actual results that occurred at Plymouth. While Marx endorsed a system that placed the individual second while proclaiming its strength was found in the community, Weber believed the strength of the system was with a group of individuals united in a common cause. Weber described the Protestants as people “who had grown up in the hard school of life, calculating and daring at the same time, above all temperate and reliable, shrewd and completely devoted to their business, with strictly bourgeois opinions and principles” (Weber, 1958, p. 69). It was believed that being in a class was a temporary condition when an individual dedicated him or herself to their calling. With an inalienable right to pursue the calling, the only boundaries imposed upon the individual were those bestowed by the church and the society in which they lived. This unbridled pursuit that had “the highest ethical appreciation of the sober, middle-class, self-made [person]” unleashed a vastly superior potential in everyone while in the pursuit of efficiency (Weber, 1958, p. 163). Even though low wages was permissible by the church as efficiency increased, the reality was such that a capitalist system discouraged low wages because skilled labor could find work elsewhere. (Weber, 1958, p. 61) A society can be created when the potential of individuals was harnessed thereby creating capital and or an increased efficiency. (Weber, 1958, p. 53) “What was condemned as covetousness [by the church], was the pursuit of riches for their own sake” (Weber, 1958, p. 172). This ascetic belief engrained by the church into its followers had two affects that were utilitarian in nature to promote a more efficient societal growth. The first affect was that resources were not squandered on luxury items. However, the use of wealth to promote efficiency or well-being within the town or society was highly encouraged. (Weber, 1958, p. 170171) As a matter of their perception, “Labour in the service of rational organization for the provision of humanity with material goods has without doubt always appeared to representatives of the capitalistic spirit as one of the most important purposes of their lifework” (Weber, 1958, p. 75-76). The potential energy unleashed on society took a majority of the individuals from the decrepit conditions of the feudal system to productive members and thereby increasing the standard of living for all individuals, not just the bourgeois. Like Marxism, free market and capitalism does have its weaknesses. The focus in this section will be on the role of religion and how the individual was reduced to nothing more than a machine. One of the main points brought out by Weber was the role of religion in curbing what Marx‟s would call the predatory nature of capitalism. Weber himself laments that the moral and ethical barriers would erode as capitalism became more successful. (1958, p. 175) As evidence to this fact, Weber noted, “the people filled with the spirit of capitalism to-day tend to be indifferent, if not hostile to the church” (Weber, 1958, p. 70). The reason for this hostility was that the church had become as intrusive, rightly or wrongly, in the economic affairs of business people just as government had been doing. (Weber, 1958, p. 72) The responses ranged anywhere from indifference to open hostility. This, in theory, opened the door for individual business people to take advantage of situations for the sake of profit only and allowing them to purchase luxurious items that were once forbidden. The balanced dichotomy between working in the duty of God and sinful acts against the church and society were now tilted to one side. “The pursuit of wealth, stripped of its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely mundane passions, which often actually give it the character of sport” (Weber, 1958, p. 72). The United States was given as example where the calling was reduce to nothing but a sport. As noted, the individual working to aspire to be more, if not treated well was treated with the indifference or, worse, as a piece of machinery (Weber, 1958, p. 51). When coupled with potential of “absolute and conscious ruthlessness in acquisition, [this] has often stood in the closet connection with the strictest conformity to tradition” (Weber, 1958, p. 58). This applied to both religious and non-religious business situations where the freedom offered was nothing more than illusion because the worker could not generate enough wealth to improve their station in life. (Giddens, 1971, p. 123) Regardless of what the individual worker tried to do while working for low wages, the individual would never be more than an indentured servant on a tether. When new markets opened up, the available resources could become a battleground for the unscrupulous leaving the local inhabitants on the outside looking in as their resources were being plundered. These were the concerns of Weber as capitalism and an increase in wealth potential became reality in some situations throughout humankind‟s recent growth. Comparing the strength‟s and weaknesses of Weber‟s system to the reality of the events that transpired at Plymouth, the allure of freedom that brought most of the immigrants to Plymouth had slowly changed to a life and death struggle. The dire situation required fundamental and dramatic change since the contracted socialist system collapsed because it could not sustain any substantial growth over time. Plymouth adapted a free market system that would be more in line with Weber‟s vision. “The spirit of capitalism, in the sense in which we are using the term, had to fight its way to supremacy against the whole world of hostile forces” (Weber, 1958, p. 56). Capitalism as a system unleashed the potential of all individuals in a society, thereby increasing Plymouth‟s chances of survival. “A society can be created when the potential of individuals was harnessed thereby creating capital and or an increased efficiency” (Weber, 1958, p. 53). Did an American Indian tribe play a role in the survival of Plymouth as portrayed in modern history books? Yes, they did, however, their support was limited because they had to survive themselves while fighting off other aggressive tribes. At times, the friendly Indian tribes were dependent upon the Plantation for protection. The real social economic change that allowed the Pilgrims to survive was one that took Plymouth from Marx‟s point of view to Weber‟s while turning the plantation into a thriving endeavor for all involved. In conclusion, the individual‟s role from a personal and a systematic standpoint in Marx‟s and Weber‟s socio-economic systems were both wrought with risk and reward. With Marx, the risk was a systematic approach where the individual was expected to make sacrifices for the greater good of the revolution that would then launch a system of theoretical equality. The reward was a utopian theory of societal equality. Unfortunately, this vision of equality was clouded over by the reality that it still would have political intellectual class at the party level determining the direction of the masses. The ultimate failure in the system became evident in Marx not being able to mathematically demonstrate the capital conversion from a Capitalist society to a Communist, Marxist, and Socialist society. In addition, Marx knew that socialism was not a capital creation process since his theory of socio-economic evolution had Socialism following Capitalism. This also became evident at the Plymouth Plantation where a socialistic concept sowed inefficiencies in labor that almost reaped destruction for the plantation if not for a bold change. Weber had a different take; his system was based on individual risk and responsibility where the system was controlled only by laws, societal social moral norms, and religious belief and work ethic. The individual had the responsibility to make his or her life productive while in search of a calling. The reward was not riches; it was serving a purpose and working to achieve a higher state of understanding while pursuing a calling. The capital gathered during the pursuit was a tool to achieve further understanding and pursue even larger dreams. Like Marxism, it had its drawbacks, one of which was Weber‟s fear of a capitalist society turning into a godless predatory society where the restraints imposed by social moral norms and religion were lifted under the guise that laws could be created to replace them. If left unattended from a moral and ethical standpoint, it would breed as many tails of sorrow as there were success stories. Despite the negatives, the potential for growth would be unmatched by any other socioeconomic system as the Plymouth planters and adventures discovered. RESEARCH ANALYSIS CURRENT RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS Annotated Bibliography Ambrose, D. (2002). Socioeconomic Stratification and Its Influences on Talent Development: Some Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly; 46; 170-180. The qualitative article reviewed the affects of socio-economic stratification on education availability to low income families that have gifted children. Ambrose compared diverse socioeconomic theories of Milton Friedman and John Galbraith in order to specify why social stratification occurs and why there should be more government intervention in bridging the economic gaps. Ambrose noted another issue, how does an agency define who was or was not eligible; this was intended to include “Giftedness, Intelligence, Talent, and Merit” (Ambrose, 2002, p. 176). Overall, the article was created to promote awareness and activism in regards to helping gifted disadvantaged children. However, Ambrose did not look into existing systems, such as a voucher system that allowed disadvantage children to go to better schools that helped encourage intellectual growth. Ironically, Ambrose thought more government involvement was needed when recently, it has been the government that has shut the door on voucher and charter school systems forcing disadvantaged children back to their typically decrepit, inner city school where the emphasis has not been on schoolwork, but survival. The value this article offered was insight into the dichotomy that has been pervasive in the educational system for sometime. Activists want more intervention by the government, when it has been the government knocking down bridges that have been built to span the socioeconomic gaps. The article appears to want a Marxist-style governmental intervention by having all children being educated by the state. However, it did include some individualistic concepts similar to the theories of Weber. If an underprivileged student did qualify, they could receive opportunities to better schools that are more suited to their ability and potential. Unfortunately, this will end up making those disadvantaged children a hotly debated political issue for generations if an alternative does not come from the private sector. The political point of contention will be the criteria used in the selection process on who is allowed to apply for this program. Andolšek, D. & Štebe, J. (2004) Multinational Perspectives on Work Values and Commitment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(2), 181–209. This interesting quantitative article looked at values and the level of commitment of workers from the countries of East Germany, Japan, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and West Germany. The paper first defined commitment in the context of an unbiased international perspective. Commitment was determined to be a dependent variable and types of commitment were used, “affective (AC) and continuance (CC)” commitment (Andolšek & Štebe, 2004, p. 182). The conclusion was that the USA ranked the highest in AC while Japan ranked the highest in CC, while all of the countries noted developed predictors that explained their relative AC and CC scores. The study was interesting since the cross sections of countries sampled included both individualistic and collectivist countries. In some regards, the study mentioned that struggling economies or economies in transition often left people insecure and less committed to their employment (Andolšek & Štebe, 2004, p. 203). However, it was also discussed that efficiency or best work was something in which collectivist countries scored higher. This result was very surprising in many ways since communist countries were never known for their efficiency, while Japan and the USA, who were known for efficiency, were rated lowest. Two things that were not in the study, but which should have been noted: 1) upward mobility and 2) unemployment rate of the sampled areas. Both of these could have skewed the results one way or another. Since the exploitation of labor was a primary part of Marx‟s theories, the value of this article suggested that in order for the transition to socialism to begin, a wedge must be driven in between management and the workforce so as to lower the AC scores in individualistic countries. In lessoning the commitment and increasing the insecurity, the result would be the increased possibility of a class warfare struggle. This approach would distort the Marxist reasoning for a revolution. However, if the end justifies the means, would this really stop anyone from taking advantage of the system? Angle, S. (2005). Decent Democratic Centralism. Political Theory, 33; 518-546. In this qualitative study, the author examined the potential of democratic socialism that appears to have germinated in China. The study examines the Chinese version of democratic socialism by asking whether it is legitimate and sustainable. The author‟s approach to answering the two questions used John Rawls‟ concept the “Law of the Peoples” as quoted on page 520. The “Law of the Peoples” is an international perspective on social justice in which it is acceptable to have international laws overruling any national or state laws. This eventually led Angle to incorporate a “global philosophy” in his conclusion whereby a decent democratic centralism can be the prerequisite to liberal democracy. (2005, p.539) In the end, China would be more politically correct than the hard line they typically take with their people and other countries. The author does concede that the Chinese regime has been brutal over the years. Consequently, change would require support from the international community and any change would be slow in coming. Angle‟s article appeared to be based exclusively on theory while disregarding evidence that decent democratic centralism was equivalent to a benevolent dictator giving away token freedoms to appease the people. In addition, the concept of being „decent‟ can be viewed in many different ways allowing it to have subjective connotations. There would be the presumed arrogance in claiming that one country was decent without some type of empirical criteria. Rawls‟ foreign policy concepts do not free anyone if they require “well-ordered people” as he suggested. (Angle, 2005, p. 540) The value that this piece offers was that a class struggle or revolution was just an illusion because in the end Angle and Rawls want to create system made up with “decent hierarchical people” (Angle, 2005, p. 520). This hierarchy supports Sayer‟s claim that class systems never go away, they just reshape themselves in to the needs of the present. Angle made an eye awakening point when he linked China‟s constitution to Lenin and then subsequently linking it to Marx and Engels. (2005, p. 525) Whether Angle realized this or not, he used Russia and China as an example of countries that were built upon the socio-economic belief of democratic centralism, the same two countries which have been the most brutal towards its own people. What the author does not address sufficiently was the balance of power between the people and the government. If balance is not achieved, then the decent society is nothing but an illusion controlled by an iron fist of the government. Ardichvili, A. (2005). The Meaning of Working and Professional Development Needs of Employees in a Post-Communist Country. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5; 105-119. This qualitative study looked at the transitional affects of going from a centrally planned economy to a free market economy on 260 engineers from four large Russian corporations. The study was based on the Meaning of Work (MOW) questionnaire that had “six valued work outcome dimensions” (Ardichvili, 2005, p.105). The study also looked at the potential differences between respondents from Moscow and Vladimir. The study concluded that the family came first with work being second. Family was the only category that Vladimir finished higher than Moscow. Every other category, Moscow scored higher. In regards to work, the reason some of the engineers enjoyed work was the ability to network, while others thought work was satisfying and interesting. There was little difference between the respondents from the national capital (Moscow) and a rural city (Vladimir) located a 179 kilometers from Moscow. The article was a condensed version of the actual study; additionally, the study admittedly focused on one professional trade. Consequently, the study‟s result could have been skewed by the fact that engineers may have had a degree of freedom not found in the common workforce. One other critical point to note, the focus of the study was to be on the transitional affects of switching from communism to a free market system. It appeared to be more concerned with current mindset of Russian engineers. Furthermore, three of six hypotheses (H3, H5, & H6) assumed too much without some type of study to indicate the engineer‟s prior work-related beliefs during the years of communism. The previous point could have been a victim of the article being condensed. Interestingly, the study highlighted some of the differences between the classical Marxist and the communistic society that dominated the Russian people for several decades. The family and social relationships scored the highest. After capital and religion, the breakdown of the family unit was a Marxist objective. Social relationships may have been the result of pent up energy finally being released after years of oppression. Another interesting fact was that the community and religion scored the lowest in that order. Much like social relationship, this could be the result of the negativity that emanated from the Russian government through the community to the individual. More specifically, religion was one of the primary targets of the Marxist secular revolution so it was not surprising that it scored the lowest in both cities. Ardichvili, A. & Gasparishvili, A. (2003). Russian and Georgian Entrepreneurs and NonEntrepreneurs: A Study of Value Differences. Organization Studies; 24; 29-46. The authors of this quantitative study used “Hofstede‟s work-related cultural values framework” to evaluate the similarities and differences between studies conducted on Russia and Georgia over a span of approximately 10 plus years (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003, p. 30). The Hofstede method was used because earlier studies had used it to compare the two countries. The Hofstede method looks at Power Distance Indicators (PDI), Individualism (IND), Masculinity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), and Long-Term Orientation (LTO). The study had three hypotheses that looked at all five Hofstede cultural values in different ways: the first tested to see if there were differences between the two countries. The second tested to see if entrepreneurs were different from managers and employees in both countries. The third tested was to see if entrepreneurs were higher than non-entrepreneurs on four of the five indicators with a UAI expectation being lower. (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003, p. 34-35) The study produced mixed results with some being “counterintuitive” in two of the five cultural values while some of the results actually contradicted earlier studies (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003, p. 39). With the mixed results of the study, the first question that comes to mind concerns the validity of the Hofstede method being used to track cultural differences over a prolong time span. The authors of the article actually questioned several different things in regards to the outcome. Two of the concerns were the years in which the study was conducted and sample bias. This could suggest that the Hofstede method has an emotion-based element that could skew the results within the current study as well as over time. Another issue that the study did not address was the impact of technology on strong secular societies, a blurring of societal norms could be occurring over time because of the Internet. Consequently, the results of the five work-related cultural values were mimicking populous trends not depicting the individual‟s personal value system. Unfortunately, the article has limited value despite the potential it offered to the discussion in comparing Marxism and Capitalism. It is regrettable that the study did not dig deeper into the fundamental core beliefs of the individuals being tested since this would have increased the probability of evaluating generational belief systems while excluding populous bias. One final note, there appears to be bias in some articles about “Western [socio-economic] theories [being] grounded in Protestant work ethic” (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003, p. 30). This final note will be something that was evaluated in other articles in this literary review. Cavalcanti, T., Parente, S., & Zhao, R. (2007). Religion in macroeconomics: a quantitative analysis of Weber‟s thesis. Economic Theory 32, 105-123. This quantitative study goes out to answer a question posed by Weber himself, what are the quantitative results of the Calvinistic work ethic on societies and the world? (Cavalcanti et al, 2007, p. 106) The authors of this paper took Weber‟s implied question one-step farther and compared the differences between Protestants and Catholics. Despite having similar religious roots, the main difference between the two religions was an understanding of a calling and using a utilitarian systematic approach while working towards a calling. The paper establishes several mathematical theories that attempt to quantify religious beliefs, technological adaptation, demographics, profit and utility maximization, and competiveness in it various forms. The results of the study were inconclusive since it could only explain differences between northern and southern Europe, but it could not explain differences between Europe and Latin America. (Cavalcanti et al, 2007, p. 106 & 121-122) The study was too restrictive in that it only examined the impact of religion in regards to the spread of Capitalism. Religion was only one factor in allowing an individual to reach their God-given potential. The current socio-economic governmental policies and corruption play a large role in how well the individual was allowed to maximize his or her potential. For example, F.A. Hayek would note that evolution of European-style socialism played a significant role in England‟s decreasing and then stagnating economic growth rate in the output per capita during the mid to late 1900‟s. In addition, totalitarianism, fascism and socialism crept into countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain slowing their progress. Finally, most countries in Latin American have yet to establish a consistent culture where freedom in search of a calling was not hindered by corruption, socialist and totalitarian revolutions, or oppressive regimes. The article offered an explanation on why a capitalism system does not automatically transcend systematic understanding of its fundamentals to other religion and cultures. The value that this article offered was in the reality that one religious belief alone does not spread capitalism more effectively than another does. Granted, Catholics were slow in adapting free market concepts as the study did indicate; however, the type of government played a significant role on how well an individual was allowed to maximize their talents. For example, at the outset of the Plymouth colony, the Protestants were contractually not allowed to maximize their opportunity or provide incentive to do more than they were required to do. It was only after numerous hardships did the leadership of the Plymouth colony provided the free market atmosphere for an individual to truly bloom. Jackson, K. T. (2006). Breaking Down the Barriers: Bringing Initiatives and Reality into Business Ethics Education. Journal of Management Education, 30, 65-89. The qualitative study offered recommendations on how ethics can be incorporated into day-to-day business activities. The study suggested that the business people of tomorrow “must follow social mandates”, be sensitive towards legalized ethical standards that come as a result of corruption cases, “integrating ethics into all facets of business”, and balance the cultural ethical inconsistencies that come about due to globalism (Jackson, 2006, p. 66). Jackson concluded that business educational courses should take a four-step approach that elevates the importance of reputational capital, have course tools that develop ethical theory and critical thinking, encourage inter-business disciplinary ethics courses, and elevate the abilities of the teacher in order to teach ethics correctly. A business or culture mirrors the ethics and morality of its leaders and more specifically its political leaders. The study was trying to address a symptom of a much larger issue that occurs with the policy makers in Washington D.C. and other international governmental organizations. One of the first things the article mentioned was that an individual or business must follow social mandates; however, what if the social mandates were wrong? For example, the United States Congress, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac forced mortgage companies to give out subprime loans in order to offer low-income families an opportunity to own a home. When the economy faltered and banks were forced to foreclose on loans, the banks bore all of the blame for corrupt business practices such as predatory lending. This article demanded that the businessperson be ethical; however, to be ethical would require them not to give out the loan in the first place. This would have put them at odds with their social mandate. One of Weber‟s main concerns as Capitalism progressed was that religion and its moral and ethical ethos would decrease. The intent of this paper was to reinstall ethics into a majority of the business community that had long ago given up religious ethics and morality. Despite the criticisms offered in the previous paragraph, the primary goal of the paper was to eliminate or reduce the “distant, even contradictory, relationship [that] exists between economics and ethics” (Jackson, 2006, p. 66). The pursuit of this goal should not be cast away, but elevated to where the root cause for most corruption lies and then cascaded down to businesses and schools. The first spot for the development of ethics should start with public administration and political science degrees in addition to business degrees. Kets de Vries, M. (2001). The anarchist within: Clinical reflections on Russian character and leadership style. Human Relations, 54; 585-627. This qualitative study reviewed the Russian psyche as it had been shaped from the days when the czar‟s were in control. The author‟s descriptions of the Russian character give the reader an impression that the people of Russia suffer from a split personality disorder. For instance, the author quoted Nikolai Nekrasov when he wrote, “Wretched and abundant, Oppressed and powerful, Weak and mighty, Mother Russia” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 586)! This quote accurately captured how the author described the Russian people. Most of the article evaluated the Russian character based on three clinical psychoanalytic paradigms. The paradigms were 1) “A rationale lies behind every form of irrationality”, 2) “much of the people‟s motivation is unconscious”, and 3) “our behavior is very much a product of previously learned behavior patterns” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 587). The article paints the Russian people as individuals that suffered from systematic abuse. The article was informative and brought to light numerous quirks within the Russian people, whom for the most part were considered both oppressed and creative individuals. Overall, the article tried to complement the Russian people on what they have endured and how they have adapted to horrid conditions that existed from the days of Czars. Unfortunately, for the Russian people, the conditions were made worse under Stalin and by the great purges, which ultimately led them to their current purgatory of democratic centralism. One thing that made this article unique was its dependence on Russian literature to help build a case in regards to the three psychoanalytic paradigms. In addition to literature, open-ended “explanatory interviews were conducted in a semi-structured fashion” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 588). This kaleidoscope of thought was arranged in a concise manner. This article was valuable, because it provided proof that corruption and abuse did creep into the utopian ideology of Marx that formed the communist dogma, which in turn dominated the Russian people for decades. It brought out the reoccurring Marxist concept of “suffering is a virtue” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 594). In addition, it noted the role of socialized education system that supplanted the parent‟s role of being the moral arbiter and teacher. Another item of importance was democratic centralism, “For many party officials, however, democratic centralism was nothing more than a slogan used to suppress disagreement and genuinely free discussion” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 618). Finally, since Russians were subjected to a secular religion, that has since been discredited, they have been without a moral compass since the early 1990‟s which has been retarding their development into a market economy. Novak, M. (2005). Max Weber Goes Global. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, 152, 26-29. EBSCOhost database. The focus of this article was not to criticize Weber, but it offered an expanded view of Weber‟s theories to include other religions that provided momentum to the global capitalist movement. Novak quoted a former Marxist, Jagdish Bhagwati, using his statistics to prove his point concerning the power of capitalism, “poverty rates in China, which were 28% in 1978 that dropped to 9% in 1998”; in addition, “in India poverty rates were 51% in 1977-78 and the fell to 26 percent in 1999-2000” (Novak, 2005, ¶ 22). According to Novak, Weber was right on one very important and critical point. Success was a conscious choice. Success was dependent upon the individual‟s level of desire to improve his or her current condition while practicing sound economic principles. Furthermore, poverty and the inability to better oneself was a choice as well. The article noted the contributions of other religions but focused most of its energy on Catholicism providing examples of contributions by the Cistercians, Dominicans, and the Franciscans. Novak mentioned that Weber missed the point about Catholicism since he only focused on the Benedictine interpretation Catholic asceticism. Furthermore, the spread of Capitalism to countries similar to Japan that have become economic powerhouses was not predicated on a religious belief system, which proved Novak‟s main point. There must be something natural about capitalism that it can transcend various religions except for the secular religions. In the secular religions, the power of the individual has been either suppressed forcing them to conform to a national or an international concept of fairness. The importance of this article was that it did highlight Weber‟s main concern about Capitalism gaining momentum to the point where it became a soulless entity devouring the weak. However, Novak offered a different alternate ending to Weber‟s soulless quagmire. (1958) Novak quoted Abraham Lincoln in offering a prediction as to what will happen if capitalism where to continue to grow, “most favorable – almost necessary – to the emancipation of thought, and the consequent advancement of civilization” (2005, ¶ 21). The problem with Lincoln‟s vision was that those that ultimately benefited from the socio-economic prosperity would openly undermine and discard prosperous socio-economic principles for a historically suspect system. Unfortunately, Bradford was correct when he wrote about individuals foolishly thinking they were smarter than God wanting to socialize and control everything in a community. Peterson, M. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. (2003). Cultural Socialization as a Source of Intrinsic Work Motivation. Group & Organization Management, 28; 188-216. In this quantitative study, the authors tested four hypotheses that looked at cultural socialization and its impact on level of job related involvement in the United States (US), Japan, and Hungry. The first hypothesis tested worker empowerment programs to improve quality, operational effectiveness, and satisfaction against highly repetitive, low-input operations to see if certain predictors would be affected positively or negatively. In all three countries, worker empowerment programs scored the highest. The second hypothesis compared worker empowerment programs against worker entitlement value systems (trade unions). Again, all the countries score positively; the results can be summed up in the question from the survey, “Every person in our society should be entitled to interesting and meaningful work” (Petersen & RuizQuintanilla, 2003, p. 209). The third tested whether the worker empowerment programs would be “stronger in the US than in Japan or Hungry” (Petersen & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 2003, p. 196). The results for this hypothesis were mixed with the US scoring lower in some of the predictors than Japan and Hungary. Finally, the fourth hypothesis reviewed the results of the second hypothesis, because of worker entitlement value systems; the United States was expected to rank lowest of the two countries noted. The results were mixed for the criteria noted in this portion of the study. The study did a poor job of laying out the hypotheses in relation to the results generated from the questionnaire. Some of this was the result of the authors using Measure of Worker (MOW) predictors and criteria that incorporated cognitive evaluation theory (CET) and job characteristics theory (JCT) to determine intrinsic work motivation. The authors noted several limitations in the conclusion portion of the study. Most notably the authors wrote that some of the results were skewed because “… our measure was originally designed from a different theoretical perspective” (Petersen & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 2003, p. 211). Another important issue occurred when misunderstandings or false expectations arose between the actual designed intent of some of the study‟s questions and the local cultural interpretations of those same questions. The unfortunate part about this study, if anyone walked up to an individual working anywhere in the United States and asked them if they were under paid, there would be a high probability that the answer would be yes. In regards to worker empowerment programs, they have been a part of the business lexicon for some time since the quality revolution in the mid1980s. However, how well companies implement those programs has varied. One of the best programs came from Japan, and it was named the Toyota Production System. Through these programs, an individual could discover what Weber would describe as a calling. The most disturbing part from this study had to do with worker entitlement value systems. It implied that unions lead to higher intrinsic work motivation. Typically, productivity flattens out in unionized plants that do not incorporate technology to increase it. Realo, A., Allik, J. and Greenfield, B. (2008). Radius of Trust: Social Capital in Relation to Familism and Institutional Collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology; 39; 447462. In this quantitative study, the authors decided to test whether strong family ties generated low levels of social capital; in addition, they investigated whether the family unit had any type of relationship to social capital. Social capital was defined as a local or regional affiliation to “social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness” (Realo et al, 2008, p. 448). In regards to trust and collectivism, countries with strong family ties or extended family had low levels of regional social capital. Meanwhile, countries with institutional collectivism had a high level of regional social capital. Furthermore, those societies that had a strong family ties often had “a negative predictor of participating in the protection and promotion of human rights, social welfare services, and labor unions” (Realo et al, 2008, p. 458). One of the main points the study tried to make was regional collectivism and social capital correlate positively with high gross domestic product (GDP) of a country. The study used Latin American, African, and some Asian countries as examples of countries with an extended or strong family unit with low GDP to support its point. In addition, the United States (US) was used as evidence to support this point. However, during the 1930‟s and other periods of extreme hardship, the US family unit included multiple generations or what has been termed as the extended family. This was done out of utilitarian need, the prerequisites of social capital were an expensive luxury. Furthermore, the countries noted had little infrastructure available to allow individuals in rural areas to network efficiently via the Internet. These individuals were forced to survive with the only resources available to them. Like institutional collectivism, the article notes that the family unit was a subset of collectivism. The family unit was coined as the local form of collectivism. However, the study seemed to suggest that a strong family unit was a bad thing for society. Marx would appreciate this study, because he would use it to support his claims about the evils of the family unit and the need to destroy it. Unfortunately, the authors should have looked at the generational impacts of poor GDP and the need for families to become more extended. For example, government instability could cause an individual to invest less in social capital and more in the family unit. Consequently, the family unit may be the only stable collective unit that any individual might ever know. Large family units should be seen as a symptom not as a cause for societal degradation. Schluchter, W. (2004). The Approach of Max Weber‟s Sociology of Religion as Exemplified in His Study of Ancient Judaism. Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 127, (juilletseptembre 2004) 33-56. This qualitative study focused on Weber‟s work after he published The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in 1904 and any other of his literary works that defended those assumptions from 1904 to 1909. This study reviewed Weber‟s works from 1910 onward that focused on ancient Judaism as well as other religions. In addition, it broke down the post-1909 works in the following manner using the following section headers. The first section looked at “the uncompleted major projects”; this included topics such as the economy, society, religions, sociology of religion, societal orders, and power (Schluchter, 2004, p. 34). The second section was titled, “Comparison and Developmental History” (Schluchter, 2004, p. 40). It compares various religious beliefs and their impact on the development of societies throughout the world. The third section started to focus more on the impacts of Judaism; it was titled, “The Old Testament as a „Crucial Turning Point‟ in the Total Cultural History of the Near East and the West” (Schluchter, 2004, p. 45). Finally, the last section reviewed, “The (mis-) construction of a Jewish pariah people‟s situation from the Persian-Babylonian exile stage up to the fall of the second Temple” (Schluchter, 2004, p. 48). This in-depth historical piece defines the role Judaism played in the development of capitalism and a free market society. The study was a detailed piece that centered on historical theory as well as religious beliefs systems. As noted by Schluchter, “economics and sociology are only able to develop into social sciences and cultural sciences when they are rooted in a theory of human action which does not assimilate human creativity to mere utility” (2004, p. 50). Human action correlates to documented history as noted in religious texts. Consequently, it will be difficult to separate the religious ethical and moral norms from socio-economic and political biases without recasting an entire nation of people into something that they were never groomed to be. An example would be a country being founded on Judeo-Christian principles that has been suffering the ongoing systematic process of having those same principles denounced as being unacceptable by individuals that lack any moral fortitude while being forced to adhere to an ungrounded secular moral equivalent belief system. Finally, capitalism and freedom of thought were never intended to be a Protestant-only domain as many who criticized Weber made his work out to be; they were used an example by Weber. The value of the article was limited to one critical fact; it “aimed at identifying the distinctiveness of the European and American modern rationalism and at explaining its emergence, especially from a religious-ethical viewpoint” (Schluchter, 2004, p. 56). In other words, Schluchter actually discovered that in the absence of an oppressive ruling body, economic freedom could take root. As previously mentioned, many religions offer a few ingredients to the simplistic concept that an individual, if left unfettered by religious or secular beliefs, has the most power in shaping his or her own life and that an overbearing government can only hinder a society‟s progress. As noted by Feuer, secularism and Marxism is just another religion called humanism. Tsui, A., Nifadkar, S., and Yi Ou, A. (2007). Cross-National, Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior Research: Advances, Gaps, and Recommendations. Journal of Management, 33; 426-478. This qualitative study was a meta-analysis that compiled 93 individual studies that spanned ten years. The authors reviewed the key concepts of individualism and collectivism in regards to two types of studies. Type I studies reviewed culture “as an independent variable” and Type II studies reviewed culture “as a moderating variable” (Tsui et al, 2007, p. 435). In addition to the comparison and contrasting of the study results, the author offered seven recommendations for future studies to assist researchers. In the conclusion, it quickly summed up the key point that cross-cultural, organizational progress was made during the years of 1996 to 2005; however, there were many opportunities for future improvement. For example, beyond the various Western theorists, there was little contextual evidence of individualism, collectivism, leadership, and management. Researchers may want go out and find alternatives that could revolutionize thought on the previously noted topics. There was a questionable statement found in the study; it stated, “few studies considered non-cultural variables, either theoretically as predictors or empirically as controls” (Tsui et al,2007, p. 454). If few studies did not look at non-cultural variables, then the conclusion that the “similarities or differences in organizational behavior are because of culture” (Tsui et al, 2007, p. 454) was a statement of the obvious since culture was the only thing analyzed. Another critical point was that the authors only focused on organizational behavior research publications and journals. This excluded key strategy, conceptual, and practical application journals that could have provided some information to fill in the blanks left by the 93 articles. Overall, the study was enlightening and complete while providing useful morsels of information. The most significant morsel focused on the topic of ethical orientation and how an individual responded to questions on the concept of “ethically suspect behavior” in either an individualistic or a collectivist dominated society (Tsui et al, 2007, p. 435). Those employees and managers that were exposed to an individualistic-dominated society responded negatively to the “willingness to justify ethically suspect behavior, whereas universalism and pecuniary materialism positively related to it” (Tsui et al, 2007, p. 435). This depicted that people in a collectivist society could suffer or be misled by a case of groupthink, in which it was easier for individuals to accept ethically suspect behavior. Turner, S. (2007). The Continued Relevance of Weber‟s Philosophy of Social Science. Max Weber Studies, 7(1), 37-60. EBSCOhost database. This paper compares and contrasts the opinions of various modern social science authors and Max Weber on the topics of rational decision-making. Furthermore, it reviewed Weber‟s intended use of the „ideal-types‟ concept, cultural social moral norms, group consensus, and intelligent group action. This article did not directly defend the Spirit of Capitalism; however, it did defend it indirectly since most of the general criticisms were similar to the Spirit of Capitalism. Most modern philosophers discredit Weber because of his neo-Kantian beliefs and his outdated terms used in his writings. However, Turner defends Weber by adding context to the terms and thereby giving them their modern equivalents. Furthermore, in the defense of Weber, Turner did not delve into the metaphysical other than an occasional reference to God. The arguments in this paper focused on rational philosophy and the perceptions that come from the decision-making process. In reviewing the article, the author used another modern philosopher, Donald Davidson, as a way to counter some of the arguments made by those that disagree with Weber. The specific arguments noted included “action explanation, anomalous monism, and the impossibility of a „serious science‟ of psychology” (Turner, 2007, p. 37). In doing so, Turner used this counterargument as proof that Weber‟s theories were still relevant. However, as the paper indicated there were some contextual issues as to the specific meanings of philosophical phrases. For example, Turner had to redefine the expression “ideal-types”. With that being said, Davidson did provide an alluring emendation to Weber‟s neo-Kantianism ideology that modernized the spirit of capitalism. An interesting side note came in the section on decision theory; it paralleled some of the concepts used in game theory and conflict strategy. As mentioned, Turner broke down Weber‟s Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in a manner that removed religious ideology and reviewed the context of decision-making theory. This allowed Turner to apply logic to Weber‟s theories without delving into the metaphysical. It forces those that have criticized Weber to deal with his logic on the topics of casual explanation, cultural-social moral norms, group consensus, and intelligent-group action. Consequently, it also validated Bradford‟s opinions as a relevant source used in supposition portion of this Commentary. Wang, J. & Wang, G. (2006). Exploring National Human Resource Development: A Case of China Management Development in a Transitioning Context. Human Resource Development Review; 5; 176-201. In this qualitative study, the authors decided to complete a holistic review of the complex issue of management development (MD) in China when the country itself has been transitioning from a totalitarian state, based on communism, to a market socialist state where a heavily restricted, free market now exists. “The study assessed the „national, organizational, and individual‟ issues facing human resource managers while using „broader social, economic, and institutional contexts‟ ” (Wang & Wang, 2006, p. 176). Not surprisingly, the study revealed that a holistic approach to MD implementation has been “piecemeal, fragmented, and immature” (Wang & Wang, 2006, p. 197). The authors suggest that further research needs to be completed in a manner that does not compare it to true free market concepts; however, the authors suggest that research should be in a manner as if it were a scientific field experiment where the researchers have been asked only to observe. The study implores the reader to observe China‟s inconsistency in planning, implementing, and following through on MD process. However, fundamental root cause analysis required the researcher to ask why. For example, why has MD been treated halfheartedly? To answer this question would require the researcher to be critical of the Chinese government, its corruption, and its policies. In a couple of instances, the authors did mention political restrictions as an afterthought. In addition, they suggested that in regards to the individual, “participation in MD activity may not be necessarily driven by the governmental policies or organizational requirements but by managers…” (Wang & Wang, 2006, p. 191). In a society that still suffers from numerous human rights issues, it seems the responsibility would be much higher. The value of this article was to understand the limitations of change in a controlled, socialistic environment. Again, the study suggested that the research of MD must be done holistically; however, it failed to answer the simplest of questions. How can an individual affect change in a system that instills totalitarian socialistic beliefs, at the earliest ages of childhood, which may put them at odds with the government? The study does ask and even tries to answer this question, but it side steps the largest issue that dominates all others. It is a kin to asking an electrical engineer to solve an electrical problem on a production line when most of the problem was caused by fluctuations in the incoming plant power that he has no control over. Yakushko, O. (2007). Career Development Issues in the Former USSR: Implications of Political Changes for Personal Career Development. Journal of Career Development; 33; 299-315. In this qualitative study, the author used Bronfenbrenner‟s ecological model of career development to evaluate the status of career development systems in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which is now called Russia. The ecological model required the author to evaluate career development systems in the following manner: the author reviewed the “individual system, the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, and macrosystem” (Yakushko, 2007, p.300). One of the key points in the study was found in the „Mesosystemic Influences‟ section; it stated “…educational systems did not focus on helping students connect their educational experiences to vocational preferences” (Yakushko, 2007, p.306). This problem appears not to be just a regional issue since many parents and employers in the United States have been saying that about their educational system. The main critique of this article comes from the conclusion where the author writes about the impact of environment and how society should coerce an individual to choose a vocational field. Furthermore, the author stated, “Lessons drawn from the former Soviet system and from observing the current changes within the former Soviet states can aid Western career scholars in modifying models that tend to over emphasize individualistic career processes” (Yakushko, 2007, p.312). This passage says more about the belief system of the author than it does about the career development issues in Russia. Unfortunately, the author failed to realize that if the state coerced vocational decisions, then the state could eliminate dissension in policies through the same coercion. One of the most essential voices of freedom would be silenced. In reviewing the history of the Soviet Union, the author had a knack of describing life in the former Communist state as something that was near perfection if it was not for one thing or another. For instance, the author describes life prior to the Revolution of 1917 and before Stalin‟s ascension to power as something that was harmonious and natural. Then Stalin took over and implemented repressive policies that led to severe restrictions in personal freedoms that culminated in purges within the population. Then the years between the death of Stalin and the 1980s were not quite as bad. Unfortunately, the 1980s and 1990s were marked with extreme corruption. Despite the author disregarding the reasons why socialism turned from her perception of utopia to hell on earth, she did provide detailed analysis on the struggles of an ill-prepared individual desperately trying to make ends meet. Literature Review Essay In doing research for the annotated bibliography and the literature review, a somewhat random approach to study collection occurred. Simple word searches that used socialism, collectivism, free market, and capitalism quickly generated a list of 22 articles. Of those, 16 were selected based on the theme and potential insight. Furthermore, of the 16 selected, 10 of those had socialistic concepts that were pooled together under the theme of Democratic Centralism. The five of the remaining articles focused on modern interpretations of Weber‟s theories noted in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. The final article will be encapsulated in the conclusion of this review. As the Research Analysis portion of this Commentary develops, general themes were synthesized from the articles to form a couple of salient themes for both democratic centralism and modernizing Weber‟s theories. In regards to democratic centralism, the focus was on Marx, how his concepts were being applied, and potential discrepancies in the authors‟ theories or observations. The section on modernizing Weber looked at the main arguments critics made against his theory and how the authors responded to arguments made by the critics. Democratic Centralism Using simpler terms to classify democratic centralism (DC), Angle referred to it in his study on Decent Democratic Centralism as a softer gentler version of socialism where the individual has a voice. In reviewing the 10 articles that either mention or talked about the specific concepts of DC, the theme recorded in this section reviewed the applied concepts while noting any discrepancies and offering observations. The most prevalent theme in the 10 articles concerned Russia (including satellites) and China as they transitioned from a central planning state to a state that was in the process of implementing free market concepts. The various articles researched the value differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, character and leadership styles, communal living as a source of work motivation, human resource development, and career development. In an established Marxist system, the individual was expected to serve the role as an easily replaceable cog in the grand machinery of society. The individual also was expected to be highly dependent upon the state, especially since they were educated by the state to be fully immersed in the secular Marxist religion; the family unit was supposed to be non-existent and discouraged, while any relevant information was issued out upon the state‟s approval. Most of the authors addressed these systematic socio-economic realities in one degree or another. In a study that evaluated business people and non-business people, there were inconsistencies in the study when compared with the results of previous studies concerning the same issue. “One possible explanation of this difference from earlier scores could be that younger Russians (under 30 years of age) have a radically different value systems from those of older generations” (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2003, p. 39). In poor or struggling societies, the family unit becomes a focal point of the individual as noted by Petersen & Ruiz-Quintanilla and Realo et al. Furthermore, it would not be surprising that some individuals in Russia and Georgia tried to reestablish the family unit as a means of survival in unknown economic times that occurred during the economic transition. Consequently, the strength of both a business and non-business person‟s family bonds in uncertain economic times could have caused a dramatic shift in values. Ardichvili authored another study that compared the professional development needs of engineers in the rural city of Vladimir and the socio-economic capital city of Moscow. This study was more focused on the social differences within a culture instead of two countries, as noted in the previous paragraph, (Russia & Georgia) which had a dissimilar origin. As noted Moscow scored higher on everything except family (-0.01); despite being lower, Vladimir did mirror Moscow‟s results with an average difference in each mean of 0.41. The mirroring results of this study were not surprising since the two cities were only 179 km away from each other. Notable things that did come out was that despite Marx‟s recommendation to split up the family, the family unit survived the leanest years even when Soviet doctrine elevated the school teacher above the parent and had the child reporting on their parents for activities detrimental to the Soviet state. Another key note came from the passage, “the differences [between Moscow and Vladimir] was especially pronounced in the case of status and prestige (Muscovites being much more interested in their work‟s ability to provide this outcome), and being able to serve society” (Ardichvili, 2005, p. 115). This could suggest that since the USSR was a strong central planning government, the Russian Federation has kept a key contingent of that central planning power in Moscow thereby making some the free market transitions superficial. This was especially true after the Russian government took over corporations that provided natural resources. Furthermore, it has been suggested that oil and natural gas supply was one of the reasons Russia invaded Georgia. The result means that Russia has become more like the old USSR than the market socialism being practiced in Europe; as a result, it has only extended the hardships caused by the economic transition. Uncertain economic times were something new to those caught up in the Russian and Chinese socio-economic transitions. If one thing could be said about the economies of the former communist countries noted, it would be that they were consistent. Despite how bad things became, all citizens were still dependent upon the state to provide food and work. This was a reality of a Marxist state, where individualism was highly discouraged since it suggested that the individual could be self-sufficient. Self-sufficient thought was independent thought, which was misconstrued as anarchism by the state system. This falls in line with the title to Kets de Vries‟ article since it was called The Anarchist Within: Clinical Reflections on Russian Character and Leadership Style. Unfortunately, for the people that lived in the USSR during the days of communist rule, the individual had to suppress natural human desires of freedom and selfexpression in order to avoid being sent to the gulags. As an example how brutal the communist state was, Kets de Vries quoted Nikita Khrushchev, “When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances” (2001, p. 586). Unfortunately, this lead to a twisted dichotomy of thought in regards to the state and the “attitude toward authority figures implies not only a readiness to be abused but also a willingness to assume the position of sadistic authority with others” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 593). In addition, Kets de Vries suggested that individuals growing up in the Soviet-era had developed a conscious, “false self, or public self” while the “private self” was imprisoned within the subconscious (2001, p. 585). To compound this duality and the fact that the state made it a requirement not to be self-sufficient, the state incorporated the societal concept that “suffering was a virtue” and somehow this lead to society believing that “the actions of the aggressor [were to be] excused” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 594). In a weird way, this made it acceptable for the individual to take out their repressed frustrations on someone else in order to release the anarchist within. While Kets de Vries wrote about the Russian character, Peterson and Ruiz-Quintanilla examined Hungry, a former Russian satellite, and tried to compare its work motivation with the work motivation in the United States and Japan. The authors of this study admitted that some of the results were skewed because they tried using MOW concepts that did not theoretically mesh with the intent of their study. However, the authors tested worker motivation in a central planning society compared to a capitalist society. One of their hypotheses tested worker entitlement systems as one of the keys to worker motivation. Unfortunately, for the authors, the results were mixed. However, William Bradford would not have been surprised with the results from the study because of the confusion a communal concept generated during the first years of Plymouth Plantation. A key variable to worker motivation, according to Peterson and Ruiz- Quintanilla, was individual effectiveness. It would have been wrong for the authors to expect an increase in individual effectiveness when it could be viewed as management taking advantage of their labor and that could potentially put another person out of work. This potential exploitation was one of the main driving forces behind Marxism. Consequently, efficiency would not be the primary objective of a worker in a communal or socialistic society. Furthermore, the authors mentioned something that was equivalent to worker entitlement value systems. This was inferred to be a trade union. From a theoretical standpoint, anytime additional layers of bureaucracy have been added to the work place, issues become complicated and work output becomes secondary to the entitlements of the individual. Even though there were no unions at Plymouth, there was a contract that required the leadership to put limits on the productivity of the individuals trying to survive. If it were not for the leadership trying free market concepts, Plymouth and the colony located at Cape Cod would have continued to struggle and possibly fail. In the Wang and Wang study, they looked at the possibility of creating a holistic MD system in China; however, a couple of reoccurring themes seemed to have come up from previously reviewed articles. These topics included worker motivation as noted in the previous paragraph, character, and value systems. For instance, “the deeply embedded cultural norms are likely to have constrained Chinese managers from understanding and accepting business and social practices that differ from their own” (Wang & Wang, 2006, p. 184). This problem has had a snowball effect, because it created several other problems. The potential problems included “job design, leadership, motivation, performance and productivity improvement, and organizational development” (Wang & Wang, 2006, p. 184). The authors passed this off as a cultural issue; however, if an individual steps back and looked at the broader picture then it would not be difficult to see that the theories of Karl Marx have been the common theme in the countries listed in this literature review. Another irony that the Wang & Wang study provided was that they were surprised to find an incomplete and inconsistent MD system. The true economic engine behind China that made it an economic powerhouse was due to the cheap and vast labor resource. Opening up the Chinese economy to Western countries did not mean the Chinese government relinquished its control over its people. As a result, a person speaking out has continued to be dealt with harshly. A worker in China would look at the Western theories behind management development systems with trepidation. For a Chinese worker to make a simple suggestion would take a large amount of will power just to overcome their cultural upbringing that had socialist ideology imprinted in to them since early childhood. As previously stated, the authors did mention political restrictions. However, they choose to down play those restrictions and elevate Confucian ideology as the primary reason. Confucianism has been practiced in other countries such as Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea that have well developed, free market economies. In recent years, Japan has provided leadership and management development techniques that have US companies have been trying to emulate. Consequently, this leaves socialism as the potential root cause preventing the Chinese worker adapting to a new socio-economic system. The next to the last article to focus on former communist countries was written by Yakushko. Its titled intent was to investigate the impact of political changes on career development in the former USSR. However, the author wanted to use concepts from the former USSR and incorporate them on Western secondary educations systems. To begin with, Yakushko briefly described the history of the USSR from the revolution in 1917 to the current situation that individual‟s face on a daily basis. In addition, Yakushko concedes that the period that starts with Stalin and ends with the current state has been wrought with brutal tyranny, corruption, and, in general, systematic central planning malfunctions. (2007, p. 303). The period after the revolution and before Stalin, Yakushko initially offers little detail in depicting historical relevance. However, throughout the rest of the study, the author indirectly implies that it was the age of enlightenment. This was evident in one of the points in Yakushko‟s conclusion. Yakushko wrote, “Lessons drawn from the former Soviet system and from observing the current changes within the former Soviet states can aid Western career scholars in modifying models that tend to overemphasize individualistic career processes” (2007, p. 312). This appears to be conceptually alarming; Yakushko wanted worldwide higher educational entities to incorporate Soviet systems as means of guiding students in selecting career fields that society either has a need for or find socially acceptable. Author forgets that these were the same Soviet systems that endorsed and aided the rise of a brutal totalitarian dictator in Stalin. At the very minimum, Yakushko encouraged higher education leadership to select career paths that would remove or limit the choices of the individual. It would make the bastions of free thought into bastions of socially approved or limited thought. Marx would agree with the suggestions of Yakushko. The final study that reviewed former communist countries was the one conducted by Andolšek & Štebe. Interestingly, it compared the work values and commitment of Soviet Satellite countries of East Germany, Hungary, and Slovenia with those of West Germany, Great Britain, USA, and Japan. This study culminated in some mixed results; however, there were three items of interest that need to be documented. The first occurred when individuals fell on rough economic or transitional times; “Economic circumstances are important in understanding of why people are less committed to an organization in spite of the fact that they have fewer chances in the labour market” (Andolšek & Štebe, 2004, p. 204). When individuals lose faith in organizations, the family was all that was left to fall back on. This result may vary with different countries, but the statistic reality was that it did happen, which could explain the importance of the family unit increases as economic stability decreases. The second item of interest was something that was surprising because collectivist societies were rated higher in efficiency while countries like USA and Japan were rated lowest. If the authors looked at the gross domestic product of all countries during the time span of the study, they would have noticed that the inverse was true. Consequently, using opinion polls without quantifiable and empirical results can skew the results. The last item of interest was a Marxist-tactical reality, when a group of revolutionaries want to implement class warfare within a society and sow the seeds of discord they would want to focus on lowering AC scores in order to turn the workforce against management. The next three articles were more theoretical in nature and emphasized the theme of Democratic Centralism. The approach taken in these articles centered on collectivism as it relates to education, political policy, and the psychological justification for the implementation of Marxist ideology. In Ambrose‟s article, he evaluated the resources available for gifted children faced with low-income social stratification preventing them from having the same access to resources available to well-to-do children. The resolution to the problem offered by the author excluded non-governmental solutions such as voucher or charter school systems. Instead, the author suggested a very Marxist and unimaginative solution to an issue that ultimately will not elevated individuals based on educational need. Using Marxist ideology, the system will only differentiate between two individuals when a party need has become apparent. Consequently, if there were openings in a school for the gifted, the openings would require a highly political selection process making those selected „more equal‟ than other children as happens in the US military academy selection process. Ambrose misses the point and excludes every other child who has been forced to attend a substandard school that would not be classified as gifted. What makes it acceptable or right to condemn those not worthy enough according to some arbitrary selection criteria that may or may not start out as being empirical in nature? The author should have addressed the issue with substandard schools instead of creating another layer of bureaucracy, because all children are gifted to one degree or another. School systems should be created that allow all children to maximize their potential. The next article was qualitative in nature and provided the basis for a section header in this paper. It was titled “Democratic Centralism” and was written by Angle. Angle endorses China‟s current socio-economic system when he wrote, “The author examines the possibility that a reformed democratic centralism – the principle around which China‟s current policy is officially organized – might be legitimate…” (Angle, 2005, p.518). Angle goes on to say that this legitimacy can be built upon “contemporary Chinese political theory” and “Rawls‟ notion of a „decent society‟” (Angle, 2005, p.518). To rebut some of the author‟s comments, market socialism as currently deployed by China was nothing new, especially since Barone, Lange, and Taylor suggested the idea in the early to mid-1900s. Simply, Angle wants the Chinese central planning system minus the human rights issues. He hopes that the theories of Rawls will promote “Decent Regimes” that will not commit human rights violations that continue to plague the Chinese socio-economic system. (Angle, 2005, p.520) Despite all of Rawls‟ theoretical rhetoric about the political class showing restraint, Rawls mentions the concept of “well-ordered peoples” (Angle, 2005, p.524). Angle accepts this premise as a method of constraint for individuals in a society. Unfortunately, both Angle & Rawls assume that theories and law used to create wellordered people would be applied to all people. History and current political environment has demonstrated that this assumption was erroneous at best. In what will end up as a quirk of fate, the academic intelligentsias that have been ardent supporters of socialism will end up being some of it first victims. For those who do not tow the party line will become outcasts, an example of this has been occurring with scientists that doubt man-made global warming. These often castigated and discredited individuals will end up losing research grants to individuals more inline with the current societal norms of the party. The dwindling concept that America‟s learning institutions have been the bastion of free thought will finally be lost as the party using the power of the government begins to enforce its concept of well-ordered people. Consequently, the learned individuals that supported socialism will overlook the abuse of power that occurs when the balance of power has shifted to the political class, as it consolidates the necessary power required in a central planning scheme. The consolidation will never have an end date, because any new problem within a central planning paradigm requires new powers to allow the system to adjust. In the end, Democratic Centralism or Decent Centralism will be just centralism. The democracy noted in the title will end up being a token notion of what use to occur politically in this country. Using central planning to create a well-ordered decent society becomes a ruse for socialism and then totalitarianism. A well-ordered citizen becomes nothing more than an indentured servant, slave, or serf as noted by Hayek. The last article that argued for collectivism and Marxism was written by Realo, Allik, and Greenfield. It was a quantitative study that reviewed the subjective concept of social capital. Realo et al defined social capital as a group of positive connections or acts of exchange within a social network made up of individuals. The amount of positive interaction determines the strength or weakness of the social capital. Positive interaction was supposed to represent the level of trust, public spirit, participation in voluntary organizations, and willingness to sacrifice for the societal greater good. (Realo et al, 2005, p. 448) For a society that encourages diversity in thought, the concept of social capital seems to be a system that encourages groupthink and discourages anything deemed politically incorrect or insensitive. For example, what would Realo et al classify the recent tea parties that occurred on April 15 of this year? Local involvement in Northwestern Ohio was carried out via the Internet social networking blogs and news outlets. Major news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC either down played the extent of the national event or highly criticized them using derogatory terms. The argument made here was not for the tea parties, but whom or what entity should be allowed to define the events as good for the public or creating public ill will. For the people who participated in the tea parties, a portion of them probably felt the nationwide events created a large amount of social capital. For those that criticized them with extreme amounts vitriol; then they would view them as counter productive and carry a social capital that had negative worth. Who was right, who was wrong? The most unfortunate aspect about the article, in the process of establishing institutional collectivism to create social capital was that the authors decided to trash the family unit. As noted in the annotated bibliography, a strong family unit occurs in response to negative socio-economic events. It does not generate them as the study suggests. Furthermore, if groupthink and the destruction of the family unit become unintended consequences in the authors‟ attempt to create a radius of trust, then totalitarianism has an unimpeded path in becoming reality. Modernizing Weber This section will provide further analysis of the five studies that reviewed various aspects of Weber‟s theories. The studies and a majority of the criticisms of Weber‟s theory, some of which were addressed in the supposition portion of this Commentary, can be formed into several questions. For instance, was the Protestant religion the only religion that was conducive to capitalism, can business ethics survive without religion, is there a possibility that Weber‟s theories can expand globally, why did Capitalism evolve in the West, and are Weber‟s theories still relevant in today‟s society? This section will answer those questions while providing interpretation to expand the points made by the authors, because Capitalism has never been just about greed. It is about choice and providing the opportunity to live a life in the pursuit of happiness. All socio-economic systems require some sacrifice; however, there is a fundamental choice being offered in today‟s political environment when talking about Capitalism and Marxism. The first option, do you want to pursue happiness in a free society where the sacrifice is found in individual responsibility? On the other hand, do you want the second option that requires you to give up that responsibility in order to live a structured life of theoretical equal rewards where sacrifice is found in your indentured servitude to the state and the impulsive nature of the populace? The first article in this section actually compared the progress of capitalism first between Northern Europe and Southern Europe, then second, between Europe and Latin America. The findings in the quantitative study were inconclusive in regards to the stated hypothesis of the study since it could find statistical relevance in the first of the two comparisons. However, the authors did note a potential cause in their conclusion that may have lead to inconclusive results. They wrote, “These studies as well as others conclude that most of the differences in international income levels are attributed to differences in total factor productivity” (Cavalcanti et al, 2007, p. 122). There has always been one dominant force essential in promoting or hindering productivity; it was the socio-economic system and the level of control that the people in power choose to pursue. Religion in regards to productivity, as noted by Weber, was at best tolerant when it benefited from the capital that the increase in productivity created. Capitalism has always been a monetary freedom of thought, expression, and pursuit; consequently, when governments and controlling entities begin to enforce punitive legislation they were actually subjugating the freedom of individuals to speak freely economically. It was not surprising that authors‟ results were inconclusive, because the authors and Weber missed the mark when using religion as the reason for capitalism and the subsequent increase in productivity. Capitalism grew because government and the religious entities in power relaxed restrictive policies that provided a tolerant environment for individuals to maximize their potential economically. Indirectly, the results of Cavalcanti et al support this assertion since their results were not repeatable; it demonstrates that capitalism is not religion specific. In addition, the information found in the study supports many of the critics of Weber when they mention that his theory only analyzed a specific situation on the micro level and then tried to extrapolate to the macro-level. In order to modernize Weber, an individual must drop the precursor of religion while keeping the social moral norms of a free society. To support the premise that religion was never more than another form of bureaucracy, with potentially heavy handed rules and guidelines that restricted the freedom of expression through economic transactions, would automatically assume that capitalism could take root anywhere regardless of religion as long as the socio-economic environment was tolerant to economic freedom. The next article written by Novak supports this premise. In the article, he reviews the research of a former Marxist, Jagdish Bhagwati, which chronicles how slightly rolling back oppressive economic policies unleashed a fury of activity that dramatically cut the poverty rate in two countries of India and China. The primary religions of the two countries were not Protestantism. However, the industrious work ethic that was similar to the Protestants existed long before the respective governments chose to change economic policies. It was only after changing respective socio-economic policies that the individual was allowed to maximize his or her work ethic and speak in relative freedom economically. As a result, each country experienced an increase in productivity and the general well-being of a majority of its citizens improved. Furthermore, Novak also discovered that depending on the religious environment religion could provide society a social moral network of fair play while providing the individual with discipline, integrity, an understanding of individual responsibility, and self-confidence. Schluchter‟s study concerning Weber and ancient Judaism serves as another example that the Protestant work ethic was as much as a human condition rather than a religious one. Despite the study serving more as a historical piece rather than a religious one, it does provide detail about the human spirit and its thirst for freedom. In note number 55 on page 49, Schluchter wrote about the re-establishment of political freedoms by Judas Maccabaeus in the second century BC. (2004) However, Schluchter acknowledged in his first note on page 33 that Weber intended to defend his “original thesis of the study on Protestantism. Weber does indicate in various places that he intended to „extend‟ his investigations forward and backward, and indeed in his final reply to the critiques of the „Protestant Ethic‟” (2004). Even though Weber never completed this final defense of the „Protestant ethic‟, Weber did acknowledge that his original piece was a snapshot in time and it provided a turning point in regards to capitalism and religion. Nevertheless, one fact remains true, the human spirit and its desire to improve his or her current situation has been and always will be a part of the natural desire to survive. That was why capitalism has always been a symptom of freedom, not the reverse. Finally, this was the reason why the spirit of capitalism has relevance today, as it will in the future. In Turner‟s study concerning the Continued Relevance of Weber’s Philosophy of Social Science, the author went out to illustrate that despite a reader‟s opinion on neo-Kantianism, Weber‟s premise still holds true. The primary writing that Turner was defending was Weber‟s essay on ‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy, which was published in 1904. This piece was important, because it dovetails into the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Some theorists and sociologist have used the strategy of discrediting one essay as a means to discredit both. The defense of Weber requires a mutual defense of both, because some of the general criticisms of both were the same, neo-Kantian beliefs and outdated terminology. Concerning Weber‟s outdated terminology used in both essays; some critics suggest that it makes both essays outdated for today‟s use. Strangely, some academics seem to overlook Marx‟s and Engels‟ outdated terminology when arguing its relevance while disparaging Weber. With the aid of a modern philosopher, Davidson, Turner modernized Weber‟s writings on sociology. In addition of using this article as a means of indirect defense, it also brought to light some key concepts of choice or decision making process that pertain to the overall intent of this paper. More specifically, Turner and Davidson suggested that rational decision theory could be ascertained through more research. If a rational decision process can be defined then it can be manipulated via regulation, taxation, laws, social moral norms, etc. Even without concrete theory, the manipulation of decision processes of people throughout the world has been happening at various levels for sometime making freedom disappearing faster than the rain forests of South America. Because, if what Stephen Covey said was true, that “freedom was the space between stimulus and response” (Loving, 2005, p. 1), then an overbearing government with society and religion playing supporting roles has reduced the amount of freedom available to individuals. Much of the focus of this section has been on defending Weber; this next study addresses Weber‟s main concern that becomes prevalent after the rise of Capitalism, which causes morality, ethics, and religion to decrease. Jackson attempts to answer Weber‟s concern about ethics by offering recommendations on improving ethics in business. Unfortunately, Jackson aims too low by only going after business schools. The irony in Jackson‟s statement, “A scrutinizing public, media, and government will not allow corporations to work exclusively on profit maximizing in the service of shareholders while ignoring impacts on other constituencies” (Jackson, 2006, p. 68). It has been increasingly apparent that scrutinizing groups need their ethical measuring sticks recalibrated. The problem with ethics in US society has been a systemic one that needs to be addressed in early childhood. However, to Jackson‟s point, business schools can add additional training and understanding to the importance of ethics in business. As with business schools re addressing ethics, so should every school of thought throughout academia. A society “well versed in a range of moral-reasoning techniques” (Jackson, 2006, p. 77) will increase the chances of holistic success more than just focusing on one school of thought found in most college campuses. A systemic issue requires a holistic approach, especially since those preaching secularism have quickened the natural erosion process that has occurred with the increase in capitalism. The secularists, which include all of the variants of Marxism, have worked hard in stripping away most of the moral ethos that have had religious overtones from our society. To fix this problem will require an acceptance of a moral philosophy on the national level that rises above the secular environmental ethics being passed off as our guiding ethos. Ethics should be the primary concern for our government now since the affects of change can only be seen in the passing generations. The reality of our current political environment in government will never allow a politician of less than desirable leadership skills to look past the next election cycle; consequently, it is up to academia. Unfortunately, a large portion of this group has been made of individual‟s hell bent on destroying individual freedom. Unless some leader can galvanize thought in a direction that promotes ethical freedom, then individuals must survive only as they know how. In conclusion, the Research Analysis covered various articles with themes that engaged an assortment of Marxist and Socialistic concepts. Most of which appear to display an overwhelming bias towards Marxism and its variants, the least of which was collectivism. In addition to the ten studies noted in the Democratic Centralism portion of this paper, one other study captures this prevalent theme that if humankind was to advance as a society, the theories of Marxism must be incorporated to one extreme or another. The study indirectly reasserted Marx‟s concept that the focus of society should be the society and not the individual or the family. However, before noting the conclusion, the authors penned a group of recommendations that included this one statement in which the authors lamented that the advancement in cross-cultural organizational behavioral research has been “overshadowed by several conceptual and methodological issues, some of which are quite basic, to our astonishment. The fundamental concept of culture has not been systematically examined, nor has the proliferation of cultural frameworks with overlapping dimensions and inconsistent measurement” (Tsui et al, 2007, p. 460). This statement actually questions the results of numerous studies that have leaned towards Marxism; the authors inconspicuously noted that collectivist societies suffer from groupthink much more than individualist societies. The specific test that the study reviewed was “ethically suspect behavior” and the result was it was much more likely to happen in a collectivistdominated society (Tsui et al, 2007, p. 435). This explains the statement, “For many party officials, however, democratic centralism was nothing more than a slogan used to suppress disagreement and genuinely free discussion” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 618). This implied that the descriptive words such as „decent‟ and „democratic‟ used by some of the authors were nothing more than marketing ploys to draw in naïve individuals in search of social change as to advance Marx‟s negative ideology. This unfortunate indoctrination into a misleading social agenda has opened the door to a potentially less than desirable reality that socialism and the consolidation of power into a central authority becoming the stepping-stone to fascism and totalitarianism as Hayek predicted. Despite the best of intentions academia, history has proven that if an unscrupulous individual or regime has gained power in a central planning system, they never relinquished power without some sort of violent struggle. The alterative, as suggested by Weber, would require the dispersal of power equally to all individuals with in a capitalist socio-economic system. A good portion of the articles reviewed suggested that Weber‟s theories could be modernized and true positive social change could take place. Unfortunately, Capitalism and Weber have not been in vogue for some time; the result has been captured in numerous studies recognized in this paper, which have encouraged individuals to surrender freedom, individual responsibility, and the power of self-sufficiency the end result has been societal decay and the failure to holistically change society in a positive direction. RELEVANCE PRACTICE AND ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIAL SYSTEMS In a world lost in ideology, there have been two theorists that standout. Their theories have transcended time to be as current today as they were when they were first authored over a century ago. They both have been tested by time and by scholars. In this portion of the Commentary, highlights will be taken from the supposition to capture the essence of the theories proposed by Karl Marx and Max Weber. In addition, applicable experiences of William Bradford will be identified and briefly explained that either support or refute the stated theories of Marx and Weber. This synthesis of information will continue to include the studies noted in the Research Analysis. Together they will form the comparative foundation that will be used to evaluate the social change policies being implemented by President Obama and his administration. Comparative Review The information for the comparative review has three primary sources. For Marx, it came from a book he wrote with Engels and it was titled the Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy. For Weber, it came from heavily ostracized The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. While William Bradford‟s observations were mostly derived from a series of journal entries, know as Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, 1606-1646. Information from these three books will form a foundation. The foundation will be augmented with modern studies. The lessons learned in the studies will be compared and contrasted in order to provide either a modern interpretation, a review of attempted implementations, or an upgrade on the original theories. The goal is to provide a fundamental basis of understanding that can be applied to current events. The intent is not to discredit, but to educate and serve as scorecard to note the progress of ongoing social change. Foundation The foundation in regards to Marx can be located in the first chapter of his previously acknowledged book; the chapter was called the Manifesto of the Communist Party. It provided the roadmap for those politicians that aspire to tear down capitalistic society in lieu of a central planning system under the guise of a class struggle. The reason the class struggle was described as a guise was due to three statements from two sources. The first was from Sayer, when he mentioned that classes never disappear. They just reform under systematic constraints as something else, because there will always be those on the inside making the rules and those on the outside having to live by the rules. (1992) The last two statements actually come from Marx. There were more that could have been used; however, those two standout because of what they implied. The first occurred when Marx describes the dangerous class as a useful tool for the party and then second occurred when he described the general population as the working class. (1959) If what Marx suggests were true, then this would make those in the party leadership the upper class and the ongoing class struggle as nothing but a charade. Furthermore, once a nation becomes socialistic, then the never-ending class struggle, as described by Marx, will actually turn against the working class to ensure the status quo. However, Marx paints a picture of positive social change through the use of a revolution as he laid out his roadmap in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. In later chapters, he describes the potential utopia that could be achieved if certain philosophies were followed. To initiate the revolution, there were several prerequisites that had to happen before a revolution could occur. The most prevalent prerequisite that provides the best success for the implementation of socialism was capitalism. Socialism is not about wealth creation, it requires a capitalistic foundation not only as a source of wealth but also to create the appearance of a system between the haves and the have not‟s that excludes the aristocrats and intellectuals. Consequently, to replace capitalism the aristocrats and intellectuals then execute a plan that causes a series of events to occur. Marx‟s roadmap to tear down a capitalistic society in an advanced country was laid out in 10 points. (1959) They were as follows: 1. The concept of an individual owning property and having property rights has to be abolished. Thereby making the central planning government and its local subsidiaries the sole point of contact in the issuing and use of property. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28) The ultimate impact of this point is that it will eventually make everyone subservient to the whims of central planning unit and government officials. 2. “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28) is a process that encourages income redistribution by penalizing those that have theoretically plundered the under privileged. In addition, it puts limits on any potential counter-revolution by limiting or depleting available resources and capital. 3. “The concept of a right of inheritance in all its forms must be abolished” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28), this breaks the cycle of hereditable wealth forcing those typically found outside the main stream to conform to newly created societal norms. It also has the added benefit of limiting potential opposition. 4. “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28), even though emigrants will be needed as fodder in the initial stages of the revolution, a central planning unit will have to target them. As resources become limited, emigrants will become an unaccounted burden on the system. If anything, it will be done as a reason to offset the need to ration societal resources. The targeting of emigrants will be necessary in order for the central planning system to survive past its infancy. In regards to rebels, anyone voicing dissent or acting contrary to the whims of the central planning unit will be forced to live outside the socialist system; historically, this meant forced labor interment camps or prison. A brutal reality is that it is far cheaper to keep people in forced labor interment camps with a heavily restricted resource need than as an active citizen and a burden to the system. 5. “Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and [making the government] an exclusive monopoly” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28), as part of the process to both establish and consolidate power within the central planning unit. This provides a path for government to decapitalize the capitalist society as theorized by Marx. 6. This point was extremely critical to both the revolution and its continued survival. In a state, that practices Marxism or its variants, all information and its citizens become its two greatest assets that have to be manipulated and controlled. This means that the “centralization of the means of communication and transport” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28) becomes a high priority objective. History has demonstrated that this not only allows the government to control the release of information, it also requires the government to spy on its citizens since the citizen‟s intellectual property is the property of the state. Furthermore, it allows the government to know the general whereabouts and anticipate the movements of individuals. 7. Numerous workers will become displaced and unemployed during the destruction of the capitalist system. Since work becomes an entitlement provided by the state to the worker, factories and various production centers will become entities of the state. Not all of the workers can be employed in factories, there will be a need to keep workers busy by cultivating various types of “wastelands and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28). This can include the harnessing of energy in accordance with the socialist central plan. 8. Labor now becomes equalized in regards to rewards while work becomes the responsibility of everyone in society. Thereby paving the way for the creation of “industrial armies” need to be created in order to tackle massive state projects; Marx suggests that a good portion of these armies need to be created for agriculture (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28). It is unknown if Marx knew of the inefficiencies of a socialist system and the potential food shortages. However, he must have known that hunger breeds discontent in the populace. 9. The consolidation of various entities is needed in order to provide the central planning unit increased efficiency in control and manipulation of the people and information. This was intended to be done through a “Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28). However, in modern terms, there will no longer need to be an identifying distinction between various municipalities, states, and the nation; consequently, lower levels of bureaucracy can be peeled away to allow for the maximum of central control. Municipal control and states rights will be terminated. 10. The final point, the control and indoctrination of future generations into the staterun Marxist system by providing “free education for all children in public schools”; there will be no need for children to work other than to receive training in future vocations (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 29). The selection of vocations will be controlled and guided by the needs of the state. Furthermore, the children will adhere to the social moral norms as mandated by party officials with the teachers serving as moral arbiters. Not only do the parents give up parental rights, the children scrutinize every action the parent makes. If the parents do anything that is contrary to what the child is taught, the child is expected to report any discrepancies to the party via their teachers. Other key items that Marx noted prior to the 10 points were very instrumental as well and these become initial targets of the revolution. These targets have been selected because they have endured numerous radical changes during humankind‟s historical advancement throughout time. These were religion, morality, political science, and law. These targets make up what Marx called „eternal truths‟ (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 27). “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as freedom, justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality…” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 27) The abolition of law and morality, which were the precursors to political science, can be eroded away before the revolution occurs through the concept of moral and social equivalency. For example, the erosion of morality can occur whenever an unjust action can be explained away through some out of context and insignificant prior occurrence or where those who supposedly do not know cannot be held accountable. The inverse of moral equivalency also can occur when a group or person elevates minor social non-conformities into egregious acts to push a social agenda of change. No matter the type of moral and social equivalency, each act is like a series of waves along the seashore; erosion occurs either slowly in calm or quickly in a storm. Like social and moral equivalency, freedom can be eroded using change agents of security and sacrifice. In socialist systems, both will be used to incarcerate and reprimand the individual. In order to achieve Marx‟s never ending revolution, there will always be a pending catastrophe that requires the government to intervene and increase the level of security. In addition, there will always be some type of societal need requiring the general populace to make an even greater sacrifice; both of which can be either justified or unjustified. Knowingly, Marx offered snippets of paradise to entice the lower classes to ban together in a class struggle in the search for social equality. Realistically, all Marx has ever offered in the Manifesto of the Communist Party was struggle and historical systematic failures of previous Marxist-like systems. According to Marx, there was one undeniable truth; his belief was that the utopian nature of socialism and communism was the elimination of class antagonisms. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 38) For him, there was the bourgeois or the haves and then there was proletariat, the have-nots. Furthermore, in his worldview, it was the bourgeois that held all of the unyielding power that kept the all other classes, including the political class, at bay. For this and all other perceived wrongs was the reason Marx saw a need for the worker to revolt. For Weber, the foundation of his thoughts concerning capitalism hinged on two topics: the concept of a calling, and maintaining a societal moral balance. In many societies that have limited choices in vocations, the concern should be whether the individual would be motivated to achieve a level of success in their limited endeavors? Will continual systematic underachieving drive societal progress? Why is a calling so important? In regards to morality, it is something that every society needs regardless of socio-economic system, because everybody needs to know the rules on how to interact with other members of society without having to be brought in front of a judge. Weber just brought to light how it could be mistakenly discarded in a capitalistic system. One of the most important concepts that Weber wrote about in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism was that of a calling. The chances of it occurring in a free a society, where the individual can choose a vocation, are much greater. Furthermore, in a free society, vocational choice might run contrary to current societal trends or needs. Fortunately, the whole of humanity has always provided these „out of the box thinkers‟ necessary for sudden leaps in societal progress or enlightenment. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and a whole host of others have always been there for humanity. Unfortunately, a societal leap was something that a central planning system typically suppresses or avoids all together since it would require a systemic overhaul of government systems that in general have become bloated and heavy with bureaucracy. In addition to freethinking individuals, a calling provides the worker with the potential to maximize their efficiency. Freethinking and maximizing one‟s potential has always been attributes of liberty, which makes capitalism an attribute of liberty just as free speech has been an attribute of liberty. However, “a [person] without a calling lacks systematic, methodical character which is, as we have seen, demanded by worldly asceticism” (Weber, 1958, p. 161). Asceticism, or the abstinence of trivial items, requires the individual to be creative and selfsufficient. Self-sufficiency has been a necessary character trait that has allowed the individual to survive in a capitalist society. “Hence the faithful must follow the call by taking advantage of the opportunity” (Weber, 1958, p. 162). According to Weber, if an individual was industrious, they can combine several callings into a lifelong pursuit of individual happiness. (Weber, 1958, p. 162) In a productive society, the object of government was to protect and provide its citizens the tools of success in which the individual can find their calling. To do contrary would make the individual dependent and unproductive. Remember, Weber‟s warning, “Nations and societies deevolve when companies and individuals „cry out for government aid‟” (Weber, 1958, p. 65-66). An unspoken reality that has occurred in societies that do not allow the individual to pursue a calling has been the concept of an „I can‟t‟ culture. Why try when „I can‟t‟? I can‟t because I am not allowed to or because I do not know how to or whatever excuse that society instills in the individual to make them dependent. Society ends up enslaving the individual in his or her own ineptitude. In contrast, a calling was something that has been essential for societies that want to advance and grow for the common good of all individuals. For productive hands, free of governmental bureaucracy, makes everyone happier. Weber‟s other major topic, which serves as a warning, focuses on the issue of morality. His warning to all “I fear, wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore, I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of true religion to continue long…” (Weber, 1958, p. 175) Furthermore, “In the field of its highest development, in the United States, the pursuit of wealth, stripped of its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely mundane passions, which often actually give it the character of sport” (Weber, 1958, p. 182). Did this come to fruition or has something else contributed to the decline of religion, morality, and ethics? Part of the decline can be definitely attributed to capitalism, since traditionalism, which makes up religion, morality, and ethics seems to find itself at odds with the advancement of capitalism. (Weber, 1958, p. 58) “In fact, [capitalism] no longer needs the support of any religious forces, and feels the attempts of religion to influence economic life, …, to be as much an unjustified interference as its regulation by the state” (Weber, 1958, p. 72). However, those forces within the country that have been secular, liberal, and Marxist in nature have increased the pace in which the erosion of religion, morality, and ethics has occurred in the United States. This was especially true since Marx ridiculed ethical behavior thereby making it a necessity to abolish religion, laws, and morality of a capitalist system. This unspoken internal revolution has been going on for decades. For those who criticized the ever-growing socialist movement as being wrong have been belittled, ridiculed, and eventually discredited. Regardless of what has been causing the decline in organized religion, morality, and ethics, the problem becomes how does a society restores the moral and ethical foundation while using a non-specific religious approach. One possible approach will be addressed in the discussion portion of this section. With respect to William Bradford and the Plymouth Plantation, two significant themes come out in respect to current events and the role of government in socio-economic policy. The first and the most obvious was an observation made by William Bradford concerning a system that was based upon a communal or central planning concept. This communal idea, Bradford wrote, “applauded by some of later times; -that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a commone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God” (1908, ¶ 217). This was not the case at Plymouth as Bradford observed, “For this comunitie (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte” (Bradford, 1908, ¶ 217). Here again Bradford comments about the communal concept and the arrogance of a relatively few individuals found in the political and intellectual classes that they somehow know more about everything than a vastly greater number of individuals found in the general populace. Furthermore, some of the failures of socialist systems, as noted by Marx, were their inability to adapt to an environment that was constantly changing. It actually requires the central planning to be light and nimble in order to keep up with the changes. If government had to become massive as to plan and control every possible scenario, thereby suppressing change and retard societal growth, it would make Marxism and its variants a low or no socio-economic growth concept. In regards to the light and nimble concept of central planning that only required the equality of work and equal access to the bounty of the harvest, at Plymouth, a central planning unit could not get any lighter or more nimble. Yet, in the extreme conditions that occurred at the Plymouth Plantation where the leadership‟s only focus was on survival, it still failed. The dire circumstances required the leadership to incorporate free market concepts and the issuing of property, only through those actions did the settlement begin to survive and eventually thrive. Despite the communal or socialistic failures noted by Marx and the failure at Plymouth, the intellectual and political classes still find Marxism enticing. One can only surmise that the rapture of power has captured their imagination and thoughts causing them to discard the very thing that has allowed them to speak publicly without persecution. Unfortunately, the multitude found in the populace pay for the folly of a few. In which, to re-iterate a point made by Bradford in a different manner, regardless of education, the combined intelligence of a few cannot outthink the collective intelligence of the many in regards to all facets of life. There was very significant letter from an unknown author that provided a deep understanding of individual responsibility, team building techniques, and leadership. Furthermore, the words of wisdom came from an individual that had an obvious understanding of the ordeal that the Pilgrims were about to undertake. The author of the letter went by the initials IR; the actual name has been lost to history. The letter offered five points of advice as the Pilgrims planned to set sail. The first point was religious in nature, and it suggested that the group should repent daily for any sins known or unknown sins and trespasses committed. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2) From a non-religious point of view, the point suggests that everyone should try to remain civil and focus inward on self-improvement. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2) Since they would be in a situation where events could be outside of their control, the one thing they could control was their own personal actions. In dealing with group interaction, the next point suggests that the Pilgrims acted not in haste but with patience. Furthermore, they should try not to be easily offended while not trying to offend others as this will only build animosity within the group. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B2) The third point stressed the importance of not wasting time complaining about all the things that may go wrong, because it will be a waste of energy and time. If an individual continually complains, they have lost sight of the overall big picture, which was the survival of the group. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B3) Furthermore, this point was extended to cover the continued search for any type of charity, since it wastes the resources of the person offering charity while squandering the time and energy of the person who embarks on a continual search for help. The answer to all of one‟s needs lies within him or her. The continual search for aid only ensures that a class system will develop and be maintained, which weakens the group‟s overall performance. In more simple terms, the individual should search for answers, not handouts. As stated previously in this paper, the fourth point warns about avoiding the “deadly plague” of complacency and a lackadaisical attitude. Complacency can easily put the group at risk in the face of an unknown danger, because the individual has become complacent in working the lands, the group‟s protection, or simply not appreciating family, friends, and loved ones. (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B4) An individual that has become complacent in their daily activities has lost the understanding and respect of the gift of life. The final point referred to the characteristics of good leadership in which people selected for leadership positions should be selfless and an arbiter of good. Furthermore, a good leader should seek to provide aid to those in search of improvement or those in need, be legally responsible in the administration of laws, and as important, not to be swayed by the “foolish multitude” (Bradford & Winslow, 1966, p. B5). Allowing short-term public opinion to sway the group from its long-term vision and goals can be deadly. A good leader educates and gains reacceptance of the long-term vision, which should always include the pursuit of happiness. This simple list was prophetic in providing guidance not only to the Pilgrims, but also to all current citizens of the United States. Its wisdom captures many facets on how an individual is believed to conduct him or herself in a dynamic group situation. Theoretical Updates The theories of Marx and Weber were originally penned anywhere from the 1840s to the early 1900s. Consequently, the theories from both authors have been debated numerous times since their respective publication while continuing to be the center of debate in recent years and even weeks. In recent years, there have been new interpretations or adaptations that can trace their origins back to the theories of Marx and Weber. This section will incorporate research from those recent studies in order to add extra detail to the lessons learned from the original theories. In doing so, they will provide a modern interpretation, a review of attempted implementations, or an upgrade on the original theories. As noted in the foundation section of this paper, Marx laid out some targets and a 10-point plan to tear down a capitalistic society in an advanced country. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28-29) In reviewing the studies noted in the Research Analysis portion of this paper, several provided a possible plan of action in order to create social change. However, this pursuit of social change can be traced back to Marx‟s plan noted in the Manifesto of the Communist Party in which he laid out a set of targets and a 10-point plan. To start out with, in an effort to initiate a class war between management and those working on the shop floor and thereby launch a Marxist revolution, Andolšek & Štebe wrote about affective commitment (AC), in which the United States (US) received the highest scores followed closely by Japan. The authors noted that the “development of AC probably conditions some specific work ethic, which gives employees the feeling that their work is important for the community and they also feel that through it, they can contribute to the community in a meaningful way” (Andolšek & Štebe, 2004, p. 203). Andolšek & Štebe did not intend for this to be the outcome, but if a revolutionary leader was able to create enough insecurity in the job and financial markets, that individual could drive a wedge between Marx‟s proletariat and the modern bourgeois. “People with higher job insecurity are less committed (AC and CC) and they do not appreciate their present job anymore because of the job loss threat” (Andolšek & Štebe, 2004, p. 203). By creating insecurity, the revolutionary leader reduces AC, which in turns separates workers from their commitment to business leadership and local community organizations. To maximize the affect, the revolutionary leader spins the problem as being the fault of business leaders and in turn causes greater insecurity. Ultimately, it makes the worker more dependent upon the central government. The authors of one study brought forward a concept that is actually a target of the Marxist revolution, the destruction of the family unit (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 24). Which is also subtly implied in points three and six of Marx‟s10-point plan. In the study authored by Realo, Allik, and Greenfield, they observed that a society that had strong family ties often had “a negative predictor of participating in the protection and promotion of human rights, social welfare services, and labor unions” (Realo et al, 2008, p. 458). The participation in protection and promotion of human rights, etc., is considered a form of social capital. (Realo et al, 2008, p. 448) In essence, the point made by Realo et al is that a strong family unit decreased an individual‟s willingness participate in a communal society thereby decreasing the social capital the individual would want to share with the community. Social capital, like intellectual property, was something that needed to be controlled in point six of Marx‟s plan. In addition, if the family unit is destroyed, an individual‟s right to inheritance becomes invalid since anything inherited is actually property of the state. The destruction of the right of inheritance can be found in point three of Marx‟s plan. Furthermore, a strong family unit means individuals have become selfsufficient, this cannot be allowed in a Marxist society since this implies that the labors of other family members have been exploited. In points seven and eight of Marx‟s plan, he wrote about keeping the working class immersed on various industrial and agricultural projects deemed necessary by the leadership of the party. (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. 28) The individual no longer needs to be concerned about searching for work since everyone will be required to work. Not working falls in the category of labor exploitation; consequently, making labor not just an entitlement, but also a requirement of the worker. An individual‟s entitlement to work was something Peterson and Ruiz-Quintanilla wrote about in their study Cultural Socialization as a Source of Intrinsic Work Motivation. They wrote, “Every person in our society should be entitled to interesting and meaningful work” (Petersen & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 2003, p. 209). As the title suggests, the intent of the study to improve worker motivation using socialistic techniques; subsequently, the best worker motivation can only be found in socialistic countries. To support worker entitlement programs, vocational selection and educational preparation play an important role in a Marxist system. Two separate studies covered those exact topics. The first study written by Yakushko, Career Development Issues in the Former USSR: Implications of Political Changes for Personal Career Development was concerned that “…educational systems did not focus on helping students connect their educational experiences to vocational preferences” (2007, p.306). As a resolution to this dilemma, Yakushko suggested “lessons drawn from the former Soviet system and from observing the current changes within the former Soviet states can aid Western career scholars in modifying models that tend to overemphasize individualistic career processes” (2007, p.312). Simply, the government will guide future students into career paths with limited options since the needs of society must be served. The student will no longer be allowed to choose just any career path that might lead them to a calling. In regards to the second study, it was written by Ambrose titled, Socioeconomic Stratification and Its Influences on Talent Development: Some Interdisciplinary Perspectives. In it he wrote, “These issues require that we channel more of the critical activism we normally employ in advocacy for the gifted and talented per se toward advocacy of adequate provision for deprived high-potential children” (Ambrose, 2002, p. 178). The well-intentioned author of this study offered another politically corruptible band-aid solution that steers gifted and deprived children into social activism, which in the current state of education means socialism. In the end, those children deemed gifted and deprived will be indoctrinated into socialism so they can lead others down the path. The two studies noted in this paragraph fall under the tenth and last point in Marx‟s plan in changing a highly evolved capitalistic nation into a socialistic one. The ultimate goal of Marx was to introduce socialism on a global scale. As noted by Feuer, “Marxism, which declared itself the harbinger of a new international order…” (Marx & Engels, 1959, p. ix). Jackson faintly reiterates this ultimate goal when he wrote his study on Breaking Down the Barriers: Bringing Initiatives and Reality into Business Ethics Education. In the study, he suggests a company should take a multi-national approach to ethics, which seems harmless until he reveals his solution. Jackson writes, “The solution lies in the idea of reputational capital a concept that links shareholder and stakeholder conceptions and brings economic and social reality to students‟ minds” (Jackson, 2006, p. 67). Jackson‟s approach is two-fold; it incorporates the Marx‟s tenth point concerning education and it takes socialistic concepts, or advancing the revolution, on a global scale. It is interesting that Jackson‟s attempt to solve Weber‟s dilemma, which has ethics and morality decreasing when capitalism increases, requires the student to lose their national identity and a portion of their freedom to speak freely using economic terms since the student will be required to repudiate capital. Furthermore, the study implies that a majority of the unethical behavior throughout the world emanates from businesses practicing pro-capital concepts as expressed by Milton Friedman. Again, if capitalism is something allowed by government, then Jackson‟s approach purposely misses the unethical behavior in the controlling government entity while restricting economic free speech. Marx would have approved of this approach. Promoting socialism on a global scale is something that Angle writes about in his study as well, which is titled, Decent Democratic Centralism. Concerning globalism and Decent Democratic Centralism, Angle wrote, “…my approach might better be termed [a] „global philosophy‟” (Angle, 2005, p. 520). Despite the name, democratic centralism is nothing more than a variant of Marxism that provides the illusion of democracy while requiring all citizens to be „well-ordered‟. Angle wrote, “… decent democratic centralism possesses fundamental political legitimacy; liberal democracies and decent democratic centralisms will share the title of well-ordered people” (Angle, 2005, p. 540). Well-ordered is explained in this manner, “members of the society should not be forced to embrace the people‟s common good, though they can, of course, be forced to follow the law” (Angle, 2005, p. 523). The law that Angle speaks of is an international „Law of the Peoples‟ concept expressed by Rawls. It appears that Angle assumes that his version of centralism and the consolidation of power will not be abused by those in power. In addition, he also assumes the people can reject the laws the central authority creates. If a group of people in a small portion of the globe decide some law is unjust, will they still be well-ordered or just ordered to follow the law? In regards to well-ordered people, Kets de Vries wrote about a group of well-ordered people in his study. His subject group happened to be the Russian people. In his study, he analyzes the Russian character using three clinical psychoanalytic rationales. These were: 1) “A rationale lies behind every form of irrationality”, 2) “much of the people‟s motivation is unconscious”, and 3) “our behavior is very much a product of previously learned behavior patterns” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 587). Kets de Vries blamed most abused nature of the Russian character on the Czars; however, he quotes a couple of Russian citizens that suggest Stalin was even more brutal and oppressive. More importantly, Kets de Vries highlighted a Marxist socioeconomic reality; it was the reoccurring theme that “suffering is a virtue” (2001, p. 594). Suffering was a common commodity in Russia‟s socialistic paradise. In regards to democratic centralism as noted by Angle, Kets de Vries had added this interesting quote to his study. He wrote, “For many party officials, however, democratic centralism was nothing more than a slogan used to suppress disagreement and genuinely free discussion” (2001, p. 618). The irony in this quote was that it reaffirms the illusion created by theorists naming things something that they hope will happen. In this instance, democratic centralism was nothing more than socialism and any democratic dissent was quickly snuffed out. Despite the inherent flaws of Marxism, which include, capital conversion, the creation of a low or no-growth society, potential for abuse by those in power, etc., Marx‟s ultimate solution to all of his problems was to take the revolution global. The ultimate problem with socialism is change and the rate at which it occurs. It has to be controlled or suppressed in order for a typically bulky bureaucratic central planning unit to keep pace. The only way for change to be slowed on a global scale is to create a central planning unit on a global scale. In doing so, those countries that were highly advanced and operating freely under a capitalist system must be equalized. With the eventual societal regression, the playing field will be leveled thereby opening the door for Marx‟s ultimate objective of globalized Marxism. Whether the authors in some of the referenced studies realize it or not, their efforts only aid societal stagnation if not full-scale regression, which is the beginning of the equalization process. This in itself will be used to define classes and breed discontent in the populace. The manufactured angst will be manipulated into a class struggle; thereby, creating the need to maintain a greater level of control to ensure humanity has a well-ordered populace. Those individuals fighting amongst themselves will not have the energy or resources to fight the central authority. Consequently, laws will be imposed that are more restrictive to quell the unrest caused by the combatants. Eventually, the new world socialistic system is fully entrenched. Regrettably, for all, a fully entrenched socialistic system will only end up breeding the type of tortured bipolar souls as described by Nikolai Nekrasov in referencing the Russian psyche. “Wretched and abundant, Oppressed and powerful, Weak and mighty, Mother Russia!” (as cited by Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 586). This tortured bipolar soul is a result of the individual developing a “false self” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 604). “When people‟s developmental processes are governed by compliance, however, especially when they are subjected to unempathic authority figures, they are in danger of being seduced into a „false… self‟ to the outside world” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 604). Furthermore, as the false self develops, this “contributes to a sense of futility, makes for pseudo-maturity, and will not foster people‟s creative sides” (Kets de Vries, 2001, p. 604). May be the anarchist within, as expressed by Kets de Vries in the title of his study about the Russian character, is actually the trapped inalienable right of freedom wanting to come out? The former Soviet Union has proven that the bipolar disorder previously described can happen at the national level. Furthermore, decrepit conditions that occur in most liberal cities suggest it can happen on a much smaller scale. Unfortunately, as socialism progresses, disillusionment is sure to follow as the US progresses into the serfdom as described by Hayek. In the studies that either referenced Weber or expressed his concerns, there were two dominant topics. First, the Protestant religious belief is not a prerequisite for Capitalism. The second is about freedom‟s anarchist tendencies, in this instance economic free speech called Capitalism, and how does a society approach it in a civilized manner. In Weber‟s research, he noted how Protestant religious leaders at first turned a blind eye toward economic freedom as long as it did not promote ungodly acts and the church ended up profiting from the activity. The result was an economic explosion that propelled the Protestants ahead of other religions and classes, much to the ire of the ruling, political, and intellectual classes. For it allowed, even the most common individual to wield more power than was once thought to be above their station. In regards to Capitalism and the Protestant belief; Cavalcanti, Parente, and Zhao tried to explain why, despite having similar religious roots, Capitalism prospered in a Protestant dominant community more than a Catholic one. Not surprisingly, the results of the study were inconclusive. Their hypothesis could only explain differences between northern (Protestant) and southern (Catholic) Europe, but they could not explain differences between Europe (Protestant dominant) and Latin (Catholic) America. The study failed to explain why Capitalism does not automatically spread like wildfire in some religious cultures when the religious cultures are similar to others where capitalism was successful in being implemented. The authors missed the point that religious beliefs alone do not spread capitalism more effectively than other religions. There are numerous reasons why capitalism does not spread successfully and most of those reasons have something to do with the local or regional socio-economic power brokers. Cavalcanti et all‟s negative results actually offered some positive affirmation that capitalism is not the progeny of religion, it actually can occur in the absence of restrictive religious and nonreligious policies. Furthermore, without burdensome policies, societies progress as Novak noted when he quoted Abraham Lincoln in offering a prediction as to what will happen if capitalism where to continue to grow, “most favorable – almost necessary – to the emancipation of thought, and the consequent advancement of civilization” (2005, ¶ 21). Lincoln suggests that only through economic freedom, which is capitalism, can a society grow and advance. In his article, Max Weber Goes Global, Novak wrote about the poverty rates in India and China and how they dropped after a small portion of economic freedom called capitalism was introduced into their socio-economic systems. Two countries that contain almost no Protestants, benefited from their controlling entities relaxing economic regulations. The article went further as to explain why other religious sects were successful in employing capitalistic concepts. Novak reiterates the point made in the previous paragraph; it is not the religion it is the freedom allowed that provides the best environment for capitalism. As previously stated, capitalism is nothing more than a form of freedom that allows individuals to ingeniously use their belongings to generate more capital as they potentially pursue a calling. A calling can be something that they are naturally good at doing, something they learned, or something they have a passion for doing. An individual that can combine passion with work may not work a day in their life. Some authors nibble around the edges using others as their moral and ethical compass. In these instances, the author validates or disputes a previous work while not addressing the key aspects directly. For example, Schluchter wrote about Weber‟s works that ranged from 1910 until his death in 1920. In it, he references other religions but specifically mentions the trials and tribulations of Judaism. Regardless of the religion, Schluchter “aimed at identifying the distinctiveness of the European and American modern rationalism and at explaining its emergence, especially from a religious-ethical viewpoint” (2004, p. 56). Indirectly, Schluchter provided evidence that Weber was working to expand his theory of capitalism by reviewing several different religions throughout humankind‟s existence in order to ascertain a holistic approach to socio-economics. Unfortunately, Weber died before he was finished and Schluchter eventually settles only on Judaism and the contributions it made before the second temple was destroyed in Jerusalem hundreds of years ago. The real opportunity for Schluchter was the „religious-ethical viewpoint‟ in socio-economics and the way it was able to transcend through different societies and religions. Weber‟s justified concern about the growth of capitalism was the decrease in society‟s acceptance of religion, ethics, and morality. As Weber stated, “I fear, wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion” (Weber, 1958, p.175). In this instance, ethics and morality are the essence of religion. However, Weber‟s concern was actually the understanding that as society‟s progress they turn secular and amoral in nature, thereby confirming Marx‟s notion that socialism becomes the next logical state after capitalism. If Weber‟s assertion is correct, then it is only through responsibility can an individual increase his or her freedom. (Weber, 1958, p.50) Then as a nation becomes rich with wealth, it will have a tendency to want to share that wealth. Consequently, in the process of removing life‟s burdens a society makes its people less responsible for their own actions and justifies it with moral equivalency in the deeds of others. This socio-economic support with compounding moral equivalency encourages individuals to become dependent and less responsible for their own actions. Subsequently, dependency allows a society to de-evolve and fall pray to socialism and then totalitarianism. As a capitalist country gets closer to the point of socialism, the system will have a large dependent class and a smaller paying class. Somehow, society needs to find a balance between aid and responsibility in which it needs to error on the side of expecting too much in individual responsibility. Unfortunately, as Henry David Thoreau was one quoted to have said, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root” (1854, p. 77). In this case, some of the thousands are intellectuals trying to solve this dilemma through legislation and government. Whether knowingly or not, as some individuals search for positive social change, they have hastened the continued societal degradation; as a result, they cause society to flail about as if it were trapped in quicksand. One author who tried to fill an ethical void with hyperbole was Jackson, his article concerning business ethics as previously noted in this section. He stated, it is about bringing ethics into business by “integrating ethics into all facets of business” (2006, p. 66). His globalist approach based on reputational capital lacks two ingredients. In a diverse world, who does he assume to be moral arbiter of the world‟s populace and why did he only focus on business? Jackson is correct in writing about business being challenged morally and ethically; however, many schools do have courses that focus on business ethics. In addition, in evoking real change, Jackson should have looked at politics and public administration as well since ethics and morality are a societal issues, not just business issues. With his focus solely on business, he suggests that business schools teach students to go out and change societies by scrutinizing a vague concept called the company‟s “aversions and preferences” (Jackson, 2006, p. 79). Somehow, Jackson expects the businessperson to find a moral equivalent balance between total societal immersion and righteous indignation when travelling abroad. Again, it is not that businesses should abstain from trying to do what is morally and ethically right, on the contrary. However, it is difficult for a business to be ethically clean when some countries look at bribes as the cost of doing business. Instead of focusing on changing the world through business ethics, Jackson should have searched for a set of societal ethics within his own country before taking on the world. It is surprisingly arrogant to look at other countries problems expecting them to change through business practices when we have glaring issues at home. In Jackson‟s defense, he is trying to solve the ongoing ethical and morality issues found throughout the world. Other authors seem to de-value humanity as noted by Dr. Martin Luther King, “They are the naturalists or the materialists; they are the Marxists; and they would see man merely as an animal” (1988, p. 13). Unfortunately, for most in the United States during the past several decades, the individual has ignored the assuming pleas of politicians and intellectuals as warning, which has lead to voter complacency and apathy. Since apathy and complacency were noted as a social „deadly plague‟, it has allowed a group of Marxist inspired politicians to occupy various seats of power. The same type of people that Bradford commented on when he lamented about those that „thought they were wiser than God‟ and confiscating property for the good of the community (1908, ¶ 217). Despite socialisms historical failures, the socio-economic lessons of the past have been ignored, maybe this is why Marxists discourage an accurate account of the past. How else will they be able to sell false hopes of a future they have historically never provided? Discussion Marx‟s roadmap was a picture that provided the illusion of equality and deliverance from theoretical oppressors while sacrificing individual freedom and long-term growth. The illusion includes theoretical socio-economic liberation; however, Marx‟s own words suggest that the highly speculative intellectual heaven on earth required continued sacrifices that were to be expected of the people. History has provided examples of how citizens become indentured servants to Marxist-like central planning systems. As a result, this shapes individuals in a socialist society into tortured bipolar souls as described by Nikolai Nekrasov in referencing the Russian psyche. Recent trends in American politics have mirrored Marx‟s unproven dreams and a path has been taken which ultimately leads to the takeover of all capital. If political and populace resistance continues to develop, the takeover of capital may need to be achieved through brute force, intimidation, extortion, etc. as history has demonstrated. Unfortunately, Marxism only requires the exaggerated deeds of charismatic unimaginative leaders implementing a system under false pretenses that is designed to maintain the status quo where the power of the few will overrule the desires and dreams of the many. Yet these lessons from the past have been ignored; as a result, the United States has elected an administration that has used disinformation, bait and switch techniques, and thug politics to win an election. It has been amazing to watch a society turn its back on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for a societal plan that believes sacrifice is a virtue. The result is an administration implementing Marx‟s grand design and the 10 points designed to tear down a capitalist system. The executive orders and legislation being passed has occurred at a blazing speed, so much so that those listed only represent a portion of the ones signed and being worked on in the administration‟s first 7-months. This section will discuss executive orders, signed legislation, and pending legislation while comparing them to Marx‟s roadmap in tearing down an advanced capitalist society. Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 funded numerous non-military related departments within the federal bureaucracy. It was highly criticized for having numerous earmarks. The question left unanswered, in the form in which it was passed, was it necessary in tough economic times when the government demands sacrifices of its people? It appears that sacrifices are only to be expected of the subservient class that pays taxes while government depletes its resources making taxes increases inevitable. This act exacerbates the need for higher progressive tax increases found in point two of Marx‟s plan. Ironically, one item that was chopped from the approved $410 billion Omnibus spending bill was the successful $18 million dollar Washington D. C. School voucher program. The cancellation of the voucher program ensures that point 10, a consolidated public school system, in Marx‟s overall plan continues to be carried out. Hypocritically, the spending bill cancels a successful school voucher program while giving $181 million to ACORN, a political action group that is working to ensure that the government is the primary lender in regards to home sales for the poor. Ultimately, this will lead to the abolition of property rights, as US citizens currently understand them and in turn accomplish the first point in Marx‟s plan. (GOP, 2009) The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act grows the number of paid volunteers from 75,000 to 250,000 in the hopes of establishing various educational opportunities. The program has the potential to do societal good; however, it breeds dependency because it trains volunteers to become more dependent on the services government, not less. It provides people the understanding that the answer to life‟s problems is not found within them, but in a government program that only increase taxes and validates the need for a higher progressive tax. In addition to point two in Marx‟s plan, it covers points seven, eight, and 10. Points seven and eight reference growing the government workforce and deploying the labor to support central planning activities, in this case the government workforce indirectly grows by 175,000 while performing various tasks that have been deemed necessary by the current administration. While the educational aspect of this act is just another form of indoctrination as deemed necessary by the government that falls in line with point ten of the plan. The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 is a piece of legislation that is a quick fix in order to offset the problems caused by Congress when they forced financial institutions to relax lending practices and then compounding the problem by not addressing the issues with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By creating bad policy and ignoring the pleas of regulators, Congress blamed financial institutions that were less than ethical in the application of the policy that they created. Consequently, they create this piece of legislation that allows the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to force lending institutions to amend loans; furthermore, it also allows bankruptcy judges to reduce principals and interest rates. This act indirectly centralizes power to control the credit of home loans in the hands of the Secretary of HUD and bankruptcy judges, which is point five in Marx‟s plan. In addition, it allows the government to control the property, which is point one in Marx‟s plan. In a bit of irony, the Obama Administration has created numerous appointed positions to run special task forces; these positions have an unofficial title that includes czar. Most of these positions come by presidential-executive order. Consequently, Congress has little input in their activities. Senator Robert Byrd believes that the use of czars has tipped the balance of power in favor of the executive branch since Congress has no say in their activities, especially when Congress has already appropriated funds for specific activities. (Bresnahan, 2009) For example, cyber security or Internet czar allows the government to monitor the internet. Coincidently, it is point six of Marx‟s plan. The auto or car czar is a unique appointment, since that czar was appointed without knowing anything about the automobile business. Much like his predecessor, Steven Rattner (De la Merced & Sorkin, 2009), the new car czar Ron Bloom has admitted that he does not have any experience in the car business. (Martin, 2009) At least Bloom, an ex-steel workers union official and private investment banker, has had experience in handling struggling businesses in major industries. Unfortunately, the reality is that the car czar has control over twothirds of the US auto industry, Chrysler and GM. This czar position can be used to employ several different points in Marx‟s plan. The most important of them being point five, the taking over of credit; points seven and eight that establish and control labor. To Senator Robert Byrd‟s point, the list of czar names includes the HUD or Housing Czar, Executive Pay Czar, Health Insurance Czar, Energy Czar, Bank Bailout/TARP Czar, Drug Czar, etc. In total, there are over 32 appointed czar positions within the Obama Administration as of mid-July of 2009. Future legislation that has been endorsed by the Obama Administration in order to implement a Marxist agenda includes Cap & Trade, Health Care Reform, and Card Check. Some of President Obama‟s harshest critics have asserted that if any of the three bills listed end up being passed into legislation, the US will no longer exist as the founding fathers intended the nation to be. Even the Russian state press Pravda has been amazed at the speed and audacity at which the Obama Administration has taken the US into the depths of Marxism. (Rodina, 2009) Pravda’s opinion comes before any of the three bills noted were seriously talked about in Congress. It is for that reason that some critics state that if Cap & Trade, Health Care Reform, or Card Check pass, the US will not be able to turn away from Marxism. Using Marx‟s plan to convert a state from Capitalism to Marxism, the three bills in questioned will be described in general and evaluated on how they fit into the Marx‟s 10-points of conversion. The first of the three being discussed in Congress is Cap and Trade. Most of the proposals being talked about by the President and in Congress come down to one common theme; it is the control of carbon dioxide emission. The sources of carbon dioxide emission range from energy plants, factories, homes, cars, and even cola products. Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency, or some Czar will establish limits on the sources of carbon dioxide. The entities that own or consume will be forced to ration resources in order to stay below or at the established limits. If the entities stay under established limit, they sell off the excess as a theoretical carbon credit. Those that consume more than the established limits will be forced to buy the carbon credits as carbon offsets. (Lieberman, 2007) The cap and trade concept is nothing new since Europe and numerous other countries have been practicing it for some time. Recently, the impetus for cap and trade comes from the claims being made by geologists and climatologists that global warming is manmade. These same scientists have been criticized for using dubious scientific methodology in some of their results. In addition, current global temperatures have not increased since 2001. As a result, Australia and other countries have suspended their versions of cap and trade systems for being too costly to maintain, increased unemployment, and deemed not necessary due to climate conditions. (Strassel, 2009) In March of 2009, a study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources assesses Spain‟s efforts in using renewable energy since the mid-1990s. The study substantiated recent claims that renewable energy in its current form has a negative social impact that has some opponents of „cap and trade‟ calling it „cap and tax‟. (Álvarez et al, 2009) Despite growing concern, the Obama Administration continues to push for cap and trade legislation. In Marx‟s grand scheme, the Obama Administration would be targeting capital, in all it‟s various forms since any increase in the cost of doing business in regards to energy will affect every part of society, both the rich and especially the poor. Moreover, society‟s innovative spirit and rate of change will be reduced to a crawl. Simply, the barrier in entering an established market will be increased; consequently, only large corporations will be able to launch new products. The direct net affect of cap and trade is a heavy progressive tax, which is point two of Marx‟s overall plan. The indirect consequences include the confiscation of bankrupt properties as happened with Chrysler and GM (point one), with a heavy progressive tax and an increase bankruptcies will require a stronger central bank and credit system (point five). The increase energy tax will curb travel and transportation (point six). Finally, the proponents of cap and trade claim that it will provide those on unemployment an increased opportunity of government subsidized jobs (points seven and eight). Whether a person is for or against cap and trade, the socio-economic impact is enormous. The next spending bill that the Obama Administration wants passed as soon as possible is Health Care Reform Legislation. According to a Whitehouse Press Release, this legislation is designed to reign in costs while providing high quality healthcare to every citizen. (Whitehouse, 2009) Excluding Medicare, Medicaid, and other existing government medical related cost, the estimated additional cost being debated in Congress is under one trillion dollars. However, the Congressional Budget Office doubts the debated cost and it estimates the cost over a trillion dollars. (Bolton, 2009) In regards to quality healthcare, the US is ranked highest in several categories. For example, using cancer survival rate as a unit of measure to evaluate cancer treatment, the US ranks number one in having the highest survival rate while countries (Canada and Europe) with centralized healthcare have significantly lower survival rates. (McCaughey, 2007) As a result, if the new centralized healthcare legislation passes, it will be evaluated using an already high standard in regards to quality. Another key portion to healthcare legislation being debated is the plan to increase competition in the health insurance market by creating a public government option. However, critics have noted that proponents of a public healthcare insurance are asking private insurance companies to compete against a government funded public option. Consequently, private companies that have to make a profit will square off against an entity that is not required to make a profit and it has a seemingly infinite budget to absorb any losses and budget shortcomings. If the budget is not infinite, then the healthcare quality and service will decrease as other industries drop their company funded private option in order to offset the extra cost of doing business because of higher taxes. If the budget is endless, then the unemployment in the US will increase because it drives insurance companies to go over seas or bankrupt. In the end, with less income revenue through payroll taxes, the government will be forced to decrease healthcare quality and services. Even some of the presidential advisors on healthcare have conceded that if healthcare legislation passes, some „pain‟ will be felt. (McCaughey, 2009) The key to true healthcare reform is actually job creation in the private NOT government sector. The Marxist understanding of healthcare reform is actually a two-pronged attack on capitalist system. As with anything dealing with Marxism, the absorption of private capital into centrally controlled, public sector is the primary goal. With insurance being a commodity that is purchased by the insurance holder, absorption of capital in the form of insurance policies will have a tremendous boost to any effort in centralizing capital while de-capitalizing the private sector as noted in point five of Marx‟s plan. To pay for this, some legislators have suggested a need for a higher progressive tax that would be imposed on those making a combined household income of $200,000 to $250,000. However, other legislators have suggested a value added tax that would affect any purchase made by anyone, including the poor. The new taxes would fit into point two of Marx‟s plan while having the added benefit of the continued de-capitalization of the overall economy. The second part of the attack would allow the government to have indirect control of the actions‟ of every citizen. Those activities deemed unhealthy by the government, need not be covered under a centralized medical system. Similar to some wellness programs, those who smoke, drink alcohol, do not exercise, eat fast foods, have irregular lifestyles, etc. can have their coverage reduced or voided. Remember, the government cannot save money on the healthy; it can only save it on those who have poor life styles or those who are sick. This tactic will become necessary for legislators as tax revenues decrease with the abundance of capital already confiscated by the government. The debate on healthcare legislation in it various forms combines various entities such as hospitals, treatment facilities, insurance companies, etc. into one large indistinguishable government entity, which is point nine of Marx‟s plan. Furthermore, this will require a centralized database system to control health records. This database system has been sold as necessary item to ensure the speedy retrieval of medical records in a medical emergency. However, point six of Marx‟s plan requires the control of all information. Finally, the wellness programs in the healthcare legislation laid out by the government as cost avoidance measures can be used to control and indoctrinate future generations, which is point 10 of Marx‟s plan. Card Check, or what has been labeled erroneously as the Employee Free Choice Act, is another issue that the Obama Administration has been pushing. It is erroneously labeled as the Free Choice Act since it does not provide anything more in regards to employee free choice than a secret ballot already provides. On the surface, it would allow the employee to vote a union in his or her place of work by either signing an actual petition or a yellow shop (petition) card. (Allen, 2009) Currently, the employee has to sign a petition or shop card in order to set up the opportunity for a secret ballot. “A second provision would give federal arbitrators power to impose contract terms on companies that fail to reach negotiated agreements with unions” (Trottman & Mullins, 2009, ¶ 5). Opponents of the bill mention that its two provisions offer a deadly one-two punch in regards to jobs and ultimately tax revenue. Furthermore, the union does not need to notify the employee that the act of signing is equivalent to voting yes for the union. (Trottman & Mullins, 2009) Other opponents have stated that by not signing the card, an employee is open to harassment and intimidation that has been reported to have occurred in the current process. With a secret ballot, it allows the employee the opportunity of anonymity and it is one of the reasons why a secret ballot is used in local, state, and federal elections. A senate filibuster ultimately stopped the bill in March of 2009; however, various union officials have vowed to take up the fight again in the near future. What the bill offers those that believe in Marxism and promote its communal agenda is a shift in power of theoretical employee rights from the bourgeois to the proletariat. In addition, it lays the foundation of organizing a country based on Marxist, Socialistic, or Communistic national party ideology. Ultimately, it solidifies points eight, nine, and 10 on Marx‟s roadmap to convert a capitalistic socio-economic system to a Marxist central planning concept where each individual is beholden to the national party. In doing so, everyone will be a part of a national industrial or agricultural armies as noted in point eight. Eventually, the differences between various unions will become obsolete as the work force is combined into a national union to address the needs of the state, which is point nine. Finally, it provides another avenue to indoctrinate and maintain all workers, both future and current, in Marxist ideology throughout their working life thus ensuring long-term party survival. Short term, card check legislation will only drive more chaos into a dying capitalist system requiring more government intervention in order to solve. Despite the inevitable societal implosion found throughout history, class antagonisms have always played a part in any system that becomes dependent upon a central planning concept. In its simplest form, a Marxist system requires a political class on the inside with the power and the workers on the outside walking on eggshells trying to avoid breaking the endless stream of rules. The sacrifices of the worker go for naught as two things become very apparent. First, the freedom they lost will never be given back peacefully. Second, as the central planning unit adapts to an ever-changing world the level of sacrifice will only increase. This will eventually lead to public dissent. Consequently, this makes all variants of Marxism in a neverending struggle to suppress all forms of internal class struggle while promoting theoretical class struggle a broad. This angry cycle of hate will only breed more hate. (King, 1998) Consequently, locking all individuals in a perpetual cycle of class struggle and hate that is needed to move Marxism on global scale. From the perspective of the individual, the distinctive qualities that allows humanity to rise above the rest of the animal kingdom will no longer exist because “… the naturalists or the materialists; … the Marxists; …they would see man merely as an animal” (King, 1988, p. 12 & 13). King‟s point is supported by Weber‟s claim that an individual‟s dependence upon a centrally planned government actually causes societies to de-evolve. (1958). Furthermore, since a centrally planned society robs or seriously curtails an individual in pursuing their calling, the individual loses their ingenuity, motivation, and self-dependence. (Weber, 1958) The individual will be reduced to a beast of burden serving the needs of the Marxist state. Remember the warning spoken by Thomas Jefferson, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” The title of this paper was Marxism versus Capitalism. During the learning process, it was discovered that Marxism versus Capitalism is an inaccurate assumption since one is a socioeconomic system of government and the other is a freedom that is dependent upon a system of government. Capitalism, or what has been called a free market system is just that, free, and its freedom is depended upon regulatory agencies and various levels of government. Free markets thrive in the absence of government. However, as Weber noted as a concern, a free market without some type of moral or ethical understanding is anarchy. The question that remains unanswered, if Marxism is a socio-economic system that enslaves and robs humanity of its dignity and ingenuity, then what stops a society‟s natural progression to de-evolve into a Marxist, Socialistic, or Communistic system as Karl Marx has predicted? The answers can be found in those who have struggled for freedom throughout history. If an individual wants to make true positive social change, then he or she should study the works of our founding fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and most recently, Dr. Martin Luther King. Their thoughts can be tempered in an economic sense through the thought processes of Friedman and others. However, it is the founding fathers, as noted by Dr. King, which has provided the mission and vision for societal growth. Dr. King went as far to quote the mission and vision from the Declaration of Independence in his „American Dream‟ sermon (1998). “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by [their] creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. It is with that thought in mind that Dr. King shapes the true goals for the individual in the Breadth, Length, and the Height concept. (1988 & 1998) Simply, those true goals provide the constancy of purpose necessary for the individual to be successful. Its wisdom can be found in the letter of advice written to William Bradford upon his departure to the New World. Its wisdom can answer some of the concerns Weber wrote about in the Protestant Ethic. Specifically, “only through [individual] responsibility does a person increase his or her freedom” (Weber, 1958, p.50). The irony is that individual responsibility that is found throughout the pages of any important religious book does not need to have religious connotations if the ethics, morals, laws, and regulations adapted by society are enforced equally and consistently regardless of who the offender may be. As soon as the first exception has been made, the erosion process has been started. This is not to say that ethics, morals, laws, and regulations cannot be changed. Change is a necessary function of survival. However, the change to the foundation has to be done in a controlled and strict manner or society risks suffering a societal collapse. The affects of societal collapse are being felt as unemployment rates have hit new highs in some areas while the Obama Administration continues to embark on radical change while moving as fast as possible without regard to societal consequences. This social change without any foresight to the damage it will inflict will require immense sacrifice to endure the pain. If the Obama Administration truly cared about the capitalistic economy and wished to improve the socio-economic conditions of all citizens there have been numerous examples from Hayek and Friedman that provide a better plan to socio-economic redemption. Of course, this would require true change and it would start with the administration‟s socio-economic philosophy. It is with these thoughts in mind that the first knowledge area module closes and the second one opens. As previously stated, history has demonstrated that Marxism and any other secular religion fails to advance a society as the society flails about trying to provide everything to everyone and in turn actually provides very little except for broken promises and more sacrifice. Weber and Capitalism provides a path to societal growth; however, as one becomes successful, the path becomes clouded and lost. This opens the door to the secular religions. It is in the next political commentary that various authors will be used to discuss true positive social change that is inclusive rather than exclusive. Nevertheless and to the point, it will begin to answer the concerns of Weber, while adhering to the advice provided by Bradford in order to avoid Marx‟s prophetic societal demise. References Allen, M. (2009). Card Check Battle Starts Tomorrow. Politico. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19786.html Álvarez, G., Jara, R., Julián, J. & Bielsa, J. (2009). Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://www.clean-coal.info/drupal/pubs/090327-employment-public-aidrenewable.pdf Ambrose, D. (2002). Socioeconomic Stratification and Its Influences on Talent Development: Some Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly; 46; 170-180. Andolšek, D. & Štebe, J. (2004) Multinational Perspectives on Work Values and Commitment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(2), 181–209. Angle, S. (2005). Decent Democratic Centralism. Political Theory, 33; 518-546. Ardichvili, A. (2005). The Meaning of Working and Professional Development Needs of Employees in a Post-Communist Country. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5; 105-119. Ardichvili, A. & Gasparishvili, A. (2003). Russian and Georgian Entrepreneurs and NonEntrepreneurs: A Study of Value Differences. Organization Studies; 24; 29-46. Bolton, A. (2009) CBO: Healthcare bill exceeds $1 trillion. The Hill. Retrieved July 8, 2009 from http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cbo-healthcare-bill-exceeds-1-trillion-2009-0615.html Bradford, W. (1908). Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, 1606-1646. (Davis, W.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Retrieved November 27, 2008 from http://www.mith2.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=bradford_history.xml&action=sh ow Bradford, W., & Winslow, E. (1966). Journall of the English plantation at Plimoth. March of America facsimile series, no. 21. Ann Arbor [Mich.]: University Microfilms. Cavalcanti, T., Parente, S., & Zhao, R. (2007). Religion in macroeconomics: a quantitative analysis of Weber‟s thesis. Economic Theory 32, 105-123. De la Merced, M. J. & Sorkin, A. R. (2009). Rattner to Serve as Lead Adviser on Auto Bailout. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/rattner-toserve-as-lead-adviser-on-auto-bailout/?hp Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: Analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, J. (1920). The Pilgrim Republic: An Historical Review of the Colony of New Plymouth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. GOP (2009). H.R. 1105: Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/1/hr1105 Hayek, F. A. (2007). The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents – The Definitive Edition. (Caldwell, B.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jackson, K. T. (2006). Breaking Down the Barriers: Bringing Initiatives and Reality into Business Ethics Education. Journal of Management Education, 30, 65-89. Kets de Vries, M. (2001). The anarchist within: Clinical reflections on Russian character and leadership style. Human Relations, 54; 585-627. King, M. L. (1988). The Measure of a Man. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. . King, M. L. (1998). A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. (Carson & Holloran). New York, N.Y.: Warner Books. Kittredge, B. (2009). The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/03/the-edward-m-kennedy-serve-ame.shtml Lieberman, B. (2007). Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1723.cfm Loving, C. (2005). Communication Skills – What They Didn’t Teach You in Chair School: A Brief Review. Loving Leadership. Retrieved March 21, 2009 from http://www.engr.washington.edu/advance/workshops/NationalWorkshop/2005/Communi cationReview.pdf Martin, J. (2009). Ron Bloom to replace Steve Rattner as car czar. Politico. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24876.html Marx, K. (1970). Critique of the Gotha Programme. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Retrieved March 21, 2009 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf.htm Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1959). Basic writings on politics and philosophy.(Feuer, L). Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. McCaughey, B. (2007). U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One. National Center for Policy Analysis: Bulleting 596. Retrieved July 8, 2009 from http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596. McCaughey, B. (2009). Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs Novak, M. (2005). Max Weber Goes Global. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, 152, 26-29. EBSCOhost database. Peterson, M. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. (2003). Cultural Socialization as a Source of Intrinsic Work Motivation. Group & Organization Management, 28; 188-216. Realo, A., Allik, J. and Greenfield, B. (2008). Radius of Trust: Social Capital in Relation to Familism and Institutional Collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology; 39; 447462. Rodina, M. (2009). American capitalism gone with a whimper. (Mishin) Pravda.ru. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/ Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. New York, NY; Routledge. Schluchter, W. (2004). The Approach of Max Weber‟s Sociology of Religion as Exemplified in His Study of Ancient Judaism. Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 127, (juilletseptembre 2004) 33-56. Strassel, K. (2009). The Climate Change Climate Change: The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere. Wall Street Journal Online. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html Thoreau, H. D. (1854). Walden; or, Life in the Woods. Ticknor and Fields: Boston. Trottman, M. & Mullins, B. (2009). Labor Bill Faces Threat In Senate. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 14, 2009 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664230925077531.html Tsui, A., Nifadkar, S., and Yi Ou, A. (2007). Cross-National, Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior Research: Advances, Gaps, and Recommendations. Journal of Management, 33; 426-478. Turner, S. (2007). The Continued Relevance of Weber‟s Philosophy of Social Science. Max Weber Studies, 7(1), 37-60. EBSCOhost database. Wang, J. & Wang, G. (2006). Exploring National Human Resource Development: A Case of China Management Development in a Transitioning Context. Human Resource Development Review; 5; 176-201. Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner. Whitehouse. (2009). Healthcare Press Release. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/ Wilson, B. (2009). Obama's Czars Spark Concerns Among Some Lawmakers. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/17/obamas-czarsspark-concerns-lawmakers/ Yakushko, O. (2007). Career Development Issues in the Former USSR: Implications of Political Changes for Personal Career Development. Journal of Career Development; 33; 299-315.