Literature Review

timer Asked: Oct 20th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $60

Question Description

Literature Review:

- Each student will be responsible for completing a literature review of at least 1500-2500 words, on a topic selected in consultation with the Professor and/or Associate Instructor. The literature review should describe the relationship between the sources under consideration, and explain what that the similarities and differences tell the reader about the issue.

Students will be expected to consult at least two scholarly sources that do not appear on the course syllabus, as well as one that does appear on the syllabus, and to summarize the various views of the issue contained within the literature on the topic:

(1) Marxism (Political Economy):

- Syllabus Source: Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

- Additional Sources (Select 2): Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (Book 1, chpts 1-4; Book 4, chpts 1-3; Book 5, chpt 1, parts 1-3 [excluding 2d and 3d], chpts 2-3); Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (Part VI, Section I); John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government (Book II, Chpts 1-5, 7, and 9); Aristotle, Politics (Book I and Book IV, Part II).

* Sources available online and in NYU Library system

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Literature Review Grading Rubric1 Thesis “Identity” Logic and Argumentation A The essay includes a Insightful analysis that easily blends sources together, illuminates the relationship between them, and identifies (Excellent) clear, compelling statement of its thesis, the primary ideas and salient features of each work; which is appropriate for discernment of scholarly worth of sources based on clear a literature review. criteria, such as cogency, support of thesis, use of sources, etc.; identification of biases, weaknesses, and limitations of sources as well as strengths. This essay demonstrates that the student has grasped the basics of critical analysis. The essay includes a Analysis blends sources together somewhat awkwardly, B (Good) clear, albeit somewhat shows some relationship between them but in a limited undeveloped statement fashion, and identifies the primary ideas and salient of its thesis, which is features of each work; limited discussion of scholarly appropriate for a worth of sources based on vague criteria; essay literature review. demonstrates that student has more or less grasped the basics of critical analysis. C Evidence The essay is organized effectively into an appropriate number of thoughtfullyordered paragraphs, generally including strong topic and transition sentences. The essay appropriately and judiciously uses quotations and appropriate paraphrasing from sources. All evidence is appropriately cited. All sources are clearly relevant to the topic, and all sources are adequately addressed in paper. The essay is well organized for With minor errors, the essay the most part. The appropriately and judiciously uses effectiveness of its quotations and appropriate paraphrasing organization could be from sources. All evidence is enhanced by more focused appropriately cited. Some sources are paragraphs and/or a stronger not adequately addressed in the essay. topic and transition sentences. The organization of the essay The essay uses quotations and is clear, but its paragraph paraphrasing awkwardly. Citation is structure may require some used, but all evidence is not clearly revision. One or more linked to citation. Multiple sources are paragraphs may be too long or not adequately addressed in the essay. too short, their main points may be unclear, or an effective introduction or conclusion may be missing. D/F The essay's statement of Weak effort to compare and contrast sources but with no The organization of the essay The essay overuses quotations and analytical depth; describes works without clear is not adequate for its purpose. paraphrasing, in ways that do not relate (Weak) purpose needs to be clarified or identification of major themes and salient features; little It may be excessively brief, or well to the essay’s arguments. Citation is strengthened or no discussion of scholarly worth; essay demonstrates essential structural elements present but haphazard. Majority of significantly, and is not that student has little or no understanding of the basics of may be missing. sources are not adequately addressed in appropriate for a critical analysis. the essay. literature review (Fair) 1 The essay includes an unclear statement of its purpose, but is reasonably appropriate for a literature review. Structure Good faith effort to compare and contrast sources but with little analytical depth; describes works with limited identification of major themes and salient features; minimal discussion of scholarly worth; essay demonstrates that student has a modest understanding of the basics of critical analysis. Adapted from: Corse, Theron. 2012. "History Workshop Essay Rubric." Tennessee State University. October 11. MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY [From the English edition of 1888, edited by Friedrich Engels] A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies. Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact. I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself. To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages. I. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guildmasters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations. The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed. The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development. The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop. Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois. Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its time, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune; here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France), afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers. The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades. The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National onesidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature. The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West. The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff. The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground—what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder. Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeois class. A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity—the epidemic of overproduction. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand inforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons—the modern working class—the proletarians. In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed—a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market. Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the u ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: Rice University


The Evils of Capitalism and Future Solutions – Outline
Thesis Statement: While these scholars are right to echo some of the perspectives that were
contained in the Communist Manifesto, the analysis of the Marxist Theory on capitalism is not
straightforward but necessary for fixing some of the challenges that world faces today and will
continue to experience in the future. Also, it is useful for understanding how the Marx's
predictions have metamorphosed from Communism to the current social capitalist system that
nations of the world are adopting after the failure of the latter at the beginning of the 21stcentury

The Evils of Capitalism
A. Alienation and exploitation
B. Factors that are responsible for the evils of capitalism
C. Profit maximization
D. Capitalism is necessary for the guarantee of the alienable rights of the citizens of a


The Marxist solution




The Evils of Capitalism and Future Solutions




The Evils of Capitalism and Future Solutions
Marxism is opposed to capitalism because of the immense capacity of the economic
system to promote social disparities, oppressive practices, and result in adverse impacts on the
structures of any society. Karl Marx was the founder of this political ideology that provides
tremendous insights into some of the issues that social scientists, unionists, activists, and other
social commentators have strived for centuries through his many writings. According to many
contemporary scholars, Marx was accurate in his predictions that capitalism would be the source
of its destruction because of the crisis instead of the solution that it provides to global problems.
The scholar further adds that the example of the United States where the median household
income has fluctuated for the bottom 60percent since 1967 when adjusted, and the soaring
wealth and income of the upper-class Americans is an example of the evils of capitalism. While
these scholars are right to echo some of the perspectives that were contained in the Communist
Manifesto, the analysis of the Marxist Theory on capitalism is not straightforward but necessary
for fixing some of the challenges that world faces today and will continue to experience in the
future. Also, it is useful for understanding how the Marx's predictions have metamorphosed from
Communism to the current social capitalist system that nations of the world are adopt...

flag Report DMCA

awesome work thanks

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors