Compare and Contrast Karl Marx’s and Walt Rostow’s Theories

This essay attempts to equate and separate Karl Marxs and Walt Rostows theories of presents of kind and frugal turnment. A system is an interconnected, tenacious system of concepts that provides a role model for organising and rationality observations. The function of a theory is to endure us to understand and predict the conduct of some aspect of the world (Miller, 1993). However, separately theory of development presents a assorted view of how and why of beginningball club offshoot and mixed bag. Each theory is useful though no iodine theory apologises everything.While Karl Marx had a assorted nonion in call for to the settles of hearty and frugal development it john also be noted that Rostow had a different perception on the theory. The Marxian st suppurate theory tradition is intimately united to turning points in the historical work of capital accumulation. These turning points mark the inception of a period of relatively native re intersection of capitalist loving traffic or, symmetrically, the beginning of a period of stagnancy and crisis. Traditional/Primitive Communism This st get along was characterized by societies without a differentiate.Most people in these societies were subsistence farmers and concentrated on their own respective(prenominal) survival. Marx and Friedrich (1983), explain that, the productive forces were hardly essential at all and property was held in common in this coiffe. During this period, land was great and population was small. People lived as unmarrieds and tested to fend for themselves regardless of whom or what was just about them. A traditional tribal construction was the order of the day while the message of Production was in a pre or early stage.The replacement of this stage of output came about by the gradual growing in population, process of wants and extension of remote relations such as state of war and trade (Marx & Friedrich, 1983). consort to Marx (1993), the gr owing freedom of the individual within the community meant that it was not possible for the traditional stage to stretch forth. quaint Stage in the ancient system of production mobes were prevalent. The govern class controlled the sup agebundance and, therefore, controlled the pass up class (Marx, 1993).In this stage, slavery was the close to predominant materialisation of class throw together as the coercion and restraintof the deject class was very direct (Laibman, 2006). The ruling class physically owned the lower class and slaves had little to no pauperism to advance the productive forces by increase their labour productivity. The ancient stage was economically supported by husbandry and the flunkthrough of trade. During this stage there were the introduction of a new engineering which mainly composite the use of animals (horses, cows and ox) and the development of both looks farming. This mode of production piece of ass be identified within antique Greek and Roman pudding stones.In Africa, this act could be identified with the coarse Ghanaian Empire and the Great Egyptian Kingdom (time of the pharaohs). feudalism Feudalism brought about the collapse of more than or less cultures and the rise of Capitalism, Barbarism and separate socio-economic characteristics which emerged as a result of wealthiness amassing. This wealth amassing was in the form of property. The feudalism age was characterised by the willpower of land. Furthermore, there was the possession of valet de chambre beings as peasants who worked on these lands (Marx & Friedrich, 1983).Feudalism is the age that has shaped Economic Development to this day. in that locationfore, it ignore be clearly seen that over generations these classes view as their status and serve as leading of the land, thereby, controlling the land which is owned by the peasants. Bourgeois The development of governments and education were the effort force of the thriftiness and resulted in an ontogenesis of Capitalism which in any casek its pedigrees from the division of labour created in a means to meet rising slope demands and improve production.Capitalism is the current stage of production. According to Shimp (2009), bourgeois stage is subdued by private property and markets. Businesses own machines, buildings and tools which atomic shape 18 used to produce different items that back be sold in markets to machinate a profit. According to Marx (1993), capitalist economy progressively divides people into two groups. In a capitalist economic system, the means of production (anything used to produce safe(p)s, like situationories, machines, and land) ar privately owned by the bourgeoisie, or capitalist class.The capitalist lower class is coerced into working for the capitalist ruling class. all the same though members of the lower class harbour their choice of which employers to sell their labour to, the fact remains that they sell their labour to survive ( Marx & Friedrich, 1983). The Rostovian remove-off mold (also called Rostows Stages of Growth) is one of the major(ip) historical models of economic growth. The model postulates that economic youngization evanesces in five basic stages, of varying length.Traditional high participation, Preconditions for take-off, Take-off, crusade to maturity, be on of broad(prenominal) mass function. Rostow asserts that countries go through all(prenominal) of these stages fairly linearly, and set out a number of conditions that were likely to occur in investiture, aspiration and well-disposed trends at each state. Traditional society is one whose structure is developed within control production functions, groupd on Pre-Newtonian science and engine room, and on Pre-Newtonian attitudes towards the physical world (Chang, 2003).This stage is characterized by subsistence agriculture or hunting & crowd almost wholly a primary sector economy limited technology a static or rigid society lack of class or individual economic mobility, with stability prioritized and change seen negatively.Pre-conditions to take-off impertinent demand for raw materials initiates economic change development of more productive, commercial agriculture & cash crops not consumed by producers and/or largely exported widespread and enhanced investment in changes to the physical environment to reach out production (i.e. irrigation, canals, ports) increasing spread of technology & advances in existing technologies changing social structure, with previous social equilibrium instantaneously in flux individual social mobility begins development of national identity and dual-lane economic affaires Take off The take-off is the musical interval when the old blocks and resistances to steady growth argon finally over keep an eye on.The forces making for economic progress, which yielded limited bursts and enclaves of modern activity, expand and come to dominate the society. Growth becomes its norm al condition. Compound interest becomes built, as it were, into its habits and institutional structure (Chang, 2003, p. 7). creationufacturing begins to go down and scale increases in a few leading industries, as goods ar do both for export and interior(prenominal) outlay the inessential (goods-producing) sector expands and ratio of secondary vs. primary sectors in the economy shifts quick towards secondary textiles & app atomic number 18l ar ordinarily the first take-off industry, as happened in Great Britains classic Industrial R evolution Drive to maturity is that stage when a society has efficaciously applied the range of (then) modern technology to the bulk of its resources (Chang, 2003, p. 59).Diversification of the industrial base multiple industries expand & newones take root quickly manufacturing shifts from investment-driven (capital goods) towards consumer durables & domestic consumption rapid development of theodolite infrastructure large-scale investment i n social infrastructure (schools, universities, hospitals, etc. ) Age of mass consumption the industrial base dominates the economy the primary sector is of greatly diminished weight in economy & society widespread and normative consumption of high-value consumer goods (e. g.automobiles) consumers typically (if not universally), have usable income, beyond all basic needs, for special goods Rostows theory is limited in some ways it is considered too generalised and simply when applicable to western countries.It works on the hypothesis that funds are effectively put into investment projects. If financial institutions are not effective this will not take place. From this failure the next assumption will not occur. The government should develop an infrastructure, to develop roads, ports, hospital and schools, if this does not occur take-off will not take place.(Rostow, 1960).The model de-emphasizes differences betwixt sectors in capitalistic vs. communist societies, only seems t o innately recognize that modernization can be achieved in different ways in different types of economies. There are certain similarities between Rostows stages of growth compend and the Marxian outline of the historical evolution of an economy. They are both audacious attempts to take care how whole societies evolve from primarily an economic perspective.Both consider the domain of group and class interests in the semipolitical and social process, joined to interests of economic advantage and both accept the fact that economic change has social, political and cultural con chronological sequences. In price of economic technique, both are based on sectoral analytic thinking of growth process, although Marx confined himself to consumption goods and capital goods sectors, while the stages of growth are rooted in a more disaggregated analysis of leading sectors which flows from a changing theory of production. Both the theories would pose, in the end, the tendency of true af fluence for human society.From otherwise view points, however, there are of import differences. The most fundamental difference between the two analyses relates to the view taken regarding human motivation. Marx interpreted human behaviour only when in economic damage. According to Marx profit-maximisation is the only dominant motive of man in his economic activities. Rostows stages of growth analysis are no doubt an economic way of looking at whole societies, moreover they do not ignore the non-economic influences. Man is viewed as a complex unit and therefore subject to a number of social, political, cultural and e driveal influences (Rostow, 1960).Marx considers the behaviour of societies as determined by economic considerations. Rostows analysis does not accept that view. In Rostows (1960) view, cultural, social and political forces also influence the carrying into action of societies. Even economic performance is condition by the above forces. A contrast between Rostows a nalysis of post-traditional and Marxs post-feudal phasecapitalismis also worth noting. Marx held that the decisions of capitalist societies are made simply in terms of the free-market mechanism and private advantage. Marxian analysis fails to explain the emergence of a welfare state.However, Rostows analysis of the breakdown of traditional societies is based on convergence of motives of private profit in the modern sectors with a new wizard of affronted nationhood (Rostow, 1960). According to Marxian analysis, memoir moves forward by the clash of hostile interests and outlooks. According to Rostow, however, the outcome of conflict in a regularly growing society is likely to be governed by last-ditch consideration of communal continuity. Marxs analysis of tale was based only on the implement of British take-off and drive to maturity.At that time, no other country had reached the take-off stage. By generalizing the British object lesson Marx missed the variety of experience in the evolution of different societies. This makes the Marxian historical sequence unduly rigid and artificial. According to G. M. Meier, Rostows analysis can claim to be a superior alternative to the Marxian sequence. Rostows stage theory helps us to isolate the strategic factors that constitute the necessary and sufficient conditions for determining the diversity of an economy from a preceding, stage to a succeeding stage.Cairncross holds that, Rostow, like, Marx, adopts a stage advancement to annals. But he has failed to show how the major variables in social and economic developments shut away in different situations. Cairncross says, Rostow is perhaps too anxious like Marx to loosenesstize history not merely to make it striking and give it meaning but to reduce it to a set pattern, to compare the texture of events into too narrow a framework of logic,An come along to history in these terms may make good drama or supply the element of fabrication required for a popular m anifesto but itdoes not make good theory or, for that matter, good history. Again in the opinion of Cairncross, one of the greatest weaknesses of stage approach to history is that it provokes but it cannot swear out the question what comes next. The engine of growth in the Marxist system is assumed to break down completely when capitalism fulfils its emergency Marx has nothing to say about the laws of motion of a post-capitalist society. In Rostows exposition, the last but presumably no the final stage is an era of high mass consumption.Although he get across on what lies beyond affluence he cannot tells us what stages have yet to come? Vaclav Holesovsky holds that Marxs classification of history is-only an approximation to the reality and the measuring rod is a single variablethe varying form in which the surplus is appropriated from the producers. This is not the case with Rostow. He has adopted a symptomatic approach and describes features of a society at dissimilar stages o f development.