Required Resources: Read And Review The Following 546639 ✓ Solved

Required Resources read/review the following resources for t

Required Resources read/review the following resources for this activity: Textbook: Chapter 4, 5, 6 Lesson Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook) Initial Post Instructions For the initial post, select and address one of the following: Option 1: Examine Marx's writings on communism and socialism and compare them to how they manifested in reality? What worked and what didn't? What misconceptions do we have about his original intent based on what we see in past or current governments? Option 2: Compare and contrast communism and fascism. Select one example for each to examine the origins of the governments, their accomplishments, and their failures. What accounts for the fact that the masses mobilized to support these movements? Elaborate. Option 3: Examine Depression-Era social programs (select one or more to examine in detail). Were the fears of a communist take-over based on the implementation of these programs grounded in reality? Why or why not? How do they compare to social programs in place today? Follow-Up Post Instructions Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. At least one of your responses should be to a peer who chose an option different from yours. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification. Writing Requirements Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up) Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source) APA format for in-text citations and list of references

Paper For Above Instructions

The following analysis responds to the assigned prompts by examining three interrelated political and social phenomena: Marx’s writings and their real-world manifestations, the comparison between communism and fascism, and Depression-era social programs with a view toward contemporary policy. Throughout the discussion, I draw on foundational theoretical works as well as historical case studies to illuminate what happened, why it happened, and what this might imply for today’s policy debates. In doing so, I rely on both primary sources and scholarly syntheses to ground the analysis in evidence and to acknowledge the complexities that accompany large-scale political movements and social programs. The first area considers Marx's writings and the extent to which his predictions and prescriptions materialized in actual societies, including the mid- to late-twentieth century attempts to reorganize economic and political life around collective ownership or control. Marx and Engels argued that capitalism contained the seeds of its own transformation, predicting a historical arc toward socialism and, ultimately, communism as the class antagonisms of capitalist society were resolved through the withering away of the state. Yet the practical implementations—most notably in the Soviet Union, China, and other states—varied widely from those theoretical visions, producing economies with centralized planning, coercive control, and political hierarchies that bore limited resemblance to Marx’s egalitarian abstractions. These outcomes prompt a careful assessment of what “worked” and what did not, as well as the persistent gaps between theory and practice. The debates over misinterpretation of Marx’s original intent persist, with scholars pointing to the emphasis on class struggle, the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional phase, and the daunting challenges of sustaining a democratic political culture under conditions of political and economic upheaval. The contemporary reading of Marx’s writings, therefore, must distinguish between core ideas about emancipation and the complicated historical inflections that produced diverse state forms (Marx & Engels, 1848). For broader context, Britannica’s overview of Karl Marx and related scholarship helps situate these debates within the larger intellectual tradition (Britannica, Karl Marx, n.d.).

The second area asks us to compare and contrast communism and fascism, focusing on origins, accomplishments, and failures, while also exploring why these movements attracted mass mobilization. While communism seeks a classless society through collective ownership and the abolition of private property in the pursuit of universal emancipation, fascism emphasizes a centralized, authoritarian state framed around national revival, often with renewed emphasis on hierarchy and cultural nationalism. Mass mobilization in both movements emerged from different appeals: in some contexts, appeals to economic insecurity, promises of social leveling, and anti-establishment rhetoric aided the appeal of communism; in others, appeals to national greatness, fear of social disorder, and charismatic leadership drew support for fascism. The analysis of mass mobilization is enriched by Robert O. Paxton’s detailed account of how fascist movements leveraged violence, propaganda, and state machinery to consolidate power, while Hannah Arendt’s overview of totalitarianism provides a framework for understanding how ideological unanimity and terror erode pluralism and political constraint (Paxton, 2004; Arendt, 1951). Britannica’s entries on fascism and Karl Marx offer additional definitional clarity for these divergent movements (Britannica, Fascism, n.d.; Britannica, Karl Marx, n.d.). The comparison also invites reflection on whether the mechanisms of state power—coercion, propaganda, and institutional capture—produce similar outcomes even when the ideologies are antithetical (Arendt, 1951).

The third area examines Depression-era social programs, their origins, and the extent to which fears of a communist takeover based on their implementation were grounded in reality, as well as how these programs compare to social programs in place today. The New Deal era introduced a set of ambitious federal interventions designed to mitigate unemployment, stimulate recovery, and provide social safety nets. Analysts debate the degree to which these policies reshaped American political economy, but consensus recognizes that programs such as public works, financial reforms, banking regulation, and social insurance in the form of old-age pensions and unemployment compensation represented a dramatic shift in the federal government’s role in everyday life. The social policy changes of the 1930s—exemplified by the Social Security Act of 1935, WPA-like public works, and labor protections—also sparked fears among some observers that economic radicalism or socialization aimed at undermining the private sector or spurring a communist coalition (Leuchtenburg, 1963; Worster, 1979). Subsequent scholarship has emphasized how the New Deal redefined citizenship, social rights, and the role of the state in crisis management, while also acknowledging its limits and the contestation that accompanied large-scale reform (Rauchway, 2008). The Social Security Act is a particularly salient focal point for discussions of modern welfare policy; the Social Security Administration’s historical overview emphasizes its origins, design, and enduring impact (SSA, n.d.). When these historical programs are compared to contemporary social policy—such as expanded social insurance, unemployment support, and public investment in infrastructure and health—common themes emerge: the tension between redistributive aims and political feasibility, the enduring debate over state capacity, and the political mobilization that accompanies policy changes (Leuchtenburg, 1963).

Across these areas, several persistent themes emerge: the irresistible appeal of security and dignity in times of crisis, the contested meaning of “the social” in capitalist democracies, and the uneasy balance between collective action and individual liberty. The historical record demonstrates that while ideologies like Marxism, communism, or fascism arose from very different premises, their practical implementations often produced centralized power structures and coercive features that restricted pluralism. It also shows that social programs can expand the state’s protective capacity during crises, but they invariably raise questions about cost, incentives, and political economy that persist in contemporary policy debates. In sum, the comparative analysis of these three prompts—Marx’s writings versus reality, communism and fascism, and Depression-era social programs—offers a nuanced lens on how ideology, state power, public policy, and popular mobilization interact in shaping historical outcomes and ongoing political possibility (Marx & Engels, 1848; Paxton, 2004; Arendt, 1951; Leuchtenburg, 1963; Worster, 1979; Rauchway, 2008; SSA, n.d.; Britannica, Fascism, n.d.; Britannica, Karl Marx, n.d.; Britannica, Great Depression, n.d.).

References

• Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
• Paxton, R. O. (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism. Alfred A. Knopf.
• Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Schocken Books.
• Leuchtenburg, W. E. (1963). The FDR Years. Harper & Row.
• Worster, D. (1979). Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s. Oxford University Press.
• Rauchway, E. (2008). The Great Depression and the New Deal. Hill and Wang.
• Social Security Administration. (n.d.). The Social Security Act of 1935. Retrieved from https://www.ssa.gov/history/
• Britannica. (n.d.). Fascism. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
• Britannica. (n.d.). Karl Marx. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Marx
• Britannica. (n.d.). Great Depression. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Depression