Capitalism vs Socialism, Liberalism is no Allie

Topic: Capitalism vs Socialism, Liberalism is no Allie

Order Description
I have provided sources needed.
I need a 10-page paper double spaced 12 pt. Plus a one-page reverse outline;
The following are the details and information;

Theme is Capitalism vs. Socialism, Liberalism is no Allie. (or Is liberalism an Allie)

Send me your research question and an annotated bibliography (see page 266) with at least eight sources (the ones you have researched already). Remember, at least five of these sources must come from a library database, not just an Internet web site. Also, five of your authors must be arguing a point. Your annotations of these five authors should show clearly what point they are arguing. These five annotations should look similar to the sample annotation under the March 22 entry of this syllabus. The other three authors can be merely informing. Be sure to annotate the informative articles, too. Submit your response in an MS Word file that you attach to the Assignments page in Canvas.

Begin drafting your synthesis paper. When drafting, keep in mind that your synthesis paper should be between 2,000 and 2,500 words long.

Also, as our textbook authors said, an explanatory synthesis paper is a presentation of other authors’ ideas. At no time in the paper should you argue your own position. Instead, you must synthesize the arguments of at least five authors, organizing your paper according to ideas, not authors. The remaining authors from your annotated bibliography can be used for informational purposes throughout your paper, especially the introduction and conclusion of your paper. See the sample reverse outline just ahead in the syllabus to see how your synthesis paper should be organized.

Revise your draft of explanatory synthesis paper. Remember, your synthesis paper should be between 2,000 and 2,500 words long. Be sure to observe this length requirement. Do not send me this draft.

Send me a reverse outline of your revised explanatory synthesis paper. See pages 231-232 for a discussion of a reverse outline. This outline should clearly show that your paper is organized around ideas, not authors. It should also clearly show the argumentative points that your various authors made. Your thesis statement should let readers know that you are going to present the ideas of others, not argue your own point. It should look something like the following example:

Thesis statement: While the war in Afghanistan continues to rage, many authors debate the merits of withdrawing our troops immediately.

Idea #1 Effects on Afghani government
Johnson feels that an immediate withdrawal would render the Afghani government defenseless.
Smith argues that an immediate withdrawal would actual strengthen the Afghani government, forcing it to become more self-reliant.

Idea#2 Impact on Taliban
Jones argues that an immediate withdrawal of our troops would strengthen Taliban recruitment of new members.
Johnson feels that an immediate withdrawal give the Taliban a political and moral victory.
Thompson argues that an immediate withdrawal would hurt the Taliban’s reputation among Afghani citizens.

The outline continues until all ideas and authors have been presented.

Submit your outline in an MS Word file that you attach to the Assignments page in Canvas.

These are the sources I need used, as they have already been submitted;

Capitalism vs. Socialism and liberalism is an allie

Cohen, Gerald Allan. Why Not Socialism?. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Print.
Cohen’s approach is different in his argument about socialism. He likens it to a road trip. He draws the comparison of how three forms of the principle of equality plus the principle of the community might apply to a person’s behavior. The author takes the opportunity to show that the adoption of socialism is allowing for it to take effect in a country or any market. He goes further to claim that modern society is a captive to socialism and if an equal, or better, the alternative was available, people would adapt to it.

Lanz, Tobias J. Beyond Capitalism & Socialism. Norfolk, Va.: Light in the Darkness Publications, 2008. Print.
Lanz looks at the way in which economies in different countries change and that there is a need for change and as a result, argues that there is need to look past the issue of liberalism and capitalism. He says that people need to look at all viable options to succeed.

Manning’s publication, although set in 1976, captures the picture of liberalism. He speaks of the way in which liberalism has shaped countries. The author describes the way in which different leaders and countries over time, have used the ideology in governance while taking some practices form capitalism.
McKenna, George, and Stanley Feingold. Taking Sides. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010. Print.
The authors of this book look at the issues that are affecting the citizens of America today. McKenna and Stanley face these issues while highlighting the steps that the current administration has taken to tackle the issues. In doing so, they argue that some of the decisions made are not made from a socialism point of view but rather they are meant to be the best of both worlds in liberalism, socialism, and capitalism. For example our country’s healthcare.

Otteson, James R. The End of Socialism. Cambridge University Press, 2014. Print.
Otteson, in this publication, addresses the ways in which socialism may be a danger to governments. The author does not deny the advantages of socialism but argues that we as the readers need to consider whether the ideas offered are morally desirable or even possible. The approach taken allows the author to reach a conclusion that is quite direct about the efficiency of socialism. Otteson goes on to prove in the opening stages of this book that with increased government control there is bound to be a reduced economy. He continues to point out, economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Adam Smith are cited to push forward the idea that the
Also this is a critique I used for an assignment leading up to this one. Please feel free to incorporate it into the paper;
Article Critique: Obama vs. Marx
When ever certain terms are used to express freedoms, especially the right to own property, it sparks controversy due to the many different opinions and beliefs that are based on principles and individual thinking. This is impactful due to the frequent use of such terms as socialism, capitalism, and communism among others in politics in efforts to garner support or to influence institutions and individuals. The difficulty in using terms is often obscured by the reactions of political elites, socialists, and other influential persons in the society in which they are used. While the terminologies might present different impressions on different individuals, the actions of the different sides of the spectrum demonstrate more than what the attitudes and opinions of those who look upon them show. This paper critiques an article that sheds light on the difference between socialists and liberalists, based on philosophies, motives, and actions of Barack Obama, President of the United States of America.
Wolfe argues that liberalism and socialism have unsurprisingly been perceived as synonymous or opposite terms that have been employed to suit similar situations, depending on the success of either of the terms. Nevertheless, the perception has been an ever changing situation across time. For example, conservatives once linked liberalism to fascism, although in recent times they have tolerated its comparison using a softer term linking it to socialism. Wolfe relates an instance of the Americans beholding President Obama’s plans as an intention to plunge

Swaney 2

the nation into a socialist system. Likewise, the media has also been drawn into and become a player of a socialist future of America with a diverse response which has triggered a debate on where the exactly the U. S. now stands.
Despite the authors concerns, however, Wolfe suggests that America is not in any uncertain terms headed for an era of socialism because socialism is not necessarily an offshoot of liberalism. Rather that the latter is a political ideology or philosophy that promotes individuality and autonomy through a perceived positive governance while the former seeks equality of all persons regardless of a necessary breach of liberty even if through government action. As a result, he maintains that liberalism and socialism are constantly conflicting philosophies. Supposing that President Obama is a liberal, Wolfe’s position is that his success to foster a liberalist system will continually undermine socialism and, thus, prohibit America’s future from ending up as a socialist country.
Wolfe goes on to compare Obama’s liberalism with reformist ideas of Great Britain’s liberalist thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hill Green and contrasted this with the views and of most notable socialists including Marx and Engels. According, to Marx and Engels, socialism was the greater and unquestionable good that seemed possible alongside everything else. In stark contrast, today’s activities as would be suggested by socialists, would appear to be closely connected to a centralized government. The embarrassing reality to the socialist embracement of the time is that the government can hardly control the major production means with relative success. Therefore, it has to involve private citizens and other relevant institutions.
Swaney 3

Much different than the European continent, socialism has never been a craving for the American populous. Leftists of Europe embraced socialism remarkably well in the twentieth century, but those days, possibilities, and opportunities seem to be over. Wolfe relates the disinterest of Britain’s Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to use the term “social democrats” as part of the amendment of Clause IV of the Labour party. Clause IV fostered the common ownership of production means. Other European countries’ systematic reforms reflect the continent’s love of the free market economy other than socialism perfectly. For instance, while Americanization was once a negative ideal in France, it now clearly explains Sarkozy’s program to reform the nation’s Napoleonic legal system with a greater focus on rights.
European ideas of governance stem from Christian and socialist principles that adhere to the customs of the community. The respective Papal and Protestant ideas of the Catholic countries and the socialist steered the Europeans concerns of obligation to support and equality. Nevertheless, the rise of big government in Europe has more to do with liberalism than Marxist and Christian ideologies. Because of this socialism has nothing to do with France’s burdensome economic regulation. That is an impact of an ancient’s government methodology of total state control over individuals. France’s recent reforms are therefore an indication of liberalism that is creeping back to replace the institutions of its socialist politicians. Likewise, Wolfe asserts Obama’s motivations of governance are neither Christian nor socialist but an attempt to bring back the philosophy of liberalism. This is an outright reaction against Christian principles and feudalism.
Swaney 4
In the light of Wolfe’s explanation of socialist origins and realities, President Obama’s programs would not seem to be a step toward socialism. While he intends to raise taxes but keep them below other western nations, Obama’s government spending is strategized to rise from 20 to 22%. Undoubtedly, a socialist government would not spend this much while the capitalist one spends less. Therefore, Wolfe would say that America is advancing its capitalist position further.
Another consideration of Obama’s stance on contemporary American affairs is a stunning revelation. Consider the following strategies of Obama’s administration. 1) The temporary as opposed to permanent privatization of banks. 2) The proposal to fix free trade. 3) a multi-payer health care system. Any socialist would strategize opposite to President Obama’s plans and proposals outlined above by for example, abolishing free trade. Further, any government proposal is subject to cutthroat competition. Most notably, Obama’s plan to fight against global warming is anchored on a market determined solution. Ironically, the alleged socialist’s faith in capitalism is argued by Wolfe that Obama even intends to lay the future of the planet in the hands of the free market.
No socialist would take the approaches of Obama’s administration. Notably, equitable distribution is attainable through moderate use of government to assist the welfare of mass numbers of citizens thus giving them more liberty. Further, progressive taxation is not a conspiracy to impound the rich’s wealth but a plan to assist the people to gain more opportunities. Therefore, such enhancements do not bolster socialism. Far from it, they distribute liberty and the ideas of liberalism dramatically. Conservatives perceive any government increase as a socialist move. In such case, George W. Bush’s adventures in Iraq that spent more than he
Swaney 5
had at his disposal would render this Republican as socialist in the eyes of those being intellectually honest. Nevertheless, that Bush went further to reform Medicare and education concurrently never appeared socialist to the conservatives like does Obama’s strategies. Evidently, anything a Democrat does can appear socialist to the Republican conservatives but not anything attributed to them.
In conclusion, liberalism is America’s last resort at the doom of conservatism. Christianity, feudalism, and socialism die together while liberalism appears admirable and efficient during such situations. Liberalism works best to distinguish itself from socialism and conservatism as compared to the tyrants of Eastern Europe. The prominent distinctions have served to reaffirm Obama’s liberalist commitment to human rights when conservatives are comfortable with their positions. Therefore, regardless of the conservative’s perceptions, it is Obama who seems to be reviving Americas defining principles of Liberalism, as opposed to the misconceived intents of a socialist system. Obama is not a socialist but a liberalist.
Swaney 6
Works Cited
Wolfe, Alan. “Obama vs. Marx.” The New Republic. 240. 9(2009). Web. 22 March 2016.