Final Quiz of Political Science class

Student:
Instructor:
Course:Date:
Political Science
John Schumpeter was amongst the prominent economists during his generation. This, together with his efforts as a social theorist sums up his great attribute as an economist and makes him lasting fame. In his great contributions, unlike other economists Schumpeter gave a clear historical outlook as his investigation towards entrepreneurial capitalism was aimed at improving the economy.
There are some objections that Schumpeter outlines to the theory executed by Marxist which touches on both the economic, social as well as political sectors. The theory on Imperialism and Social Classes, Economic Development, Socialism, Democracy and Capitalism all laid a foundation on the system that he came up with. However, his broad vision and expectations of the society especially based on the ideas of Max Weber signified a major attempt to turn Marx down, an act that raised a number of historical and operational issues that are yet to be solved to-date. According to Marx, an entrepreneur has little contribution unlike a capitalist, because the primary contribution to the progress of the community was based on capitalism. However, Schumpeter views it contrary and in his arguments points out that the entrepreneur is not only the dynamic element that accounts for the perpetuation and formation of capitalist classes, but also the primary economic actor.
The meaning of ‘Creative Destruction ‘and how Schumpeter views it as a renewing force in an attempt to maintain capitalism, is a concept that gives a description of the process incorporating industrial transformation that revolutionizes the economic structure.

He views it as a process that entails shifting the structure of the economy from within and destroying the older one so as to create a new one. However, in Marxian economic notion, the concept denotes further broadly to the processes that are linked to the accumulation of capital under capitalism.
Capitalism must have attained some development both psychologically, politically and technologically before the thought of transition to socialism occurring in Schumpeter’s mind. This is because according to him, the accomplishment of capitalism will cause a fostering of ethics that are not friendly to capitalism, more so amongst intellectuals. Therefore, both the social and intellectual climate need to give a room for the development of entrepreneurship, and this means that capitalism being advanced already will give no room for the progression. This means that socialism will replace capitalism, and a revolution is likely not to occur but instead a mere trend for the democratic parties to be elected to parliament.
There are differences between the Classical definition of democracy and the one put forth by Schumpeter. In Classical definition, democracy is often defined contrary to other types of government. In the Monarchial system of government, it means ruling controlled by a solitary ruler who may be either a King or a Queen. The aristocratic government is where leadership is entailed o hereditary measures, while Dictatorship is where those with power rule over other citizens by force. Oligarchy is a government carried out by a number of people who are actually few. A theocratic form of government is whereby citizens give God the honor that He controls them indirectly through religious leaders. However, this is contrary to Schumpeter who argues that democracy is an institutional arrangement used in arriving at political decisions that realize the corporate good for citizens, by involving the public in deciding who is to rule them. He goes further to explain that democracy as a system that is procedural should give people the opportunity to either accept or refuse people who are to rule them. He argues further that a good declared to be good is not supposed to be forced to people because it is meant to mean different things as human beings are not all the same. There should, therefore, be elections to be carried out so as to give citizens the opportunity to practice their freedom and decide on matters concerning their welfare and how they should be solved.
Fredrick Hayek was one of the most crucial classical and political economists in the 20th century. There is a variety of political and economic benefits that Hayek sees in the market structure, especially in the increasing complexity of the modern world. He focuses on how human beings possess discrete knowledge of both time and place so as to learn and operate their activities and interactions in life. For Hayek, economic matters are a discipline that deals with coordination of issues, as it examines the plans by citizens which bring forth social orders. Additionally, incentives must be put forth between actors and individuals should be aware of the best opportunities available and discover new possibilities for mutually beneficial interchange with other people.
In conclusion, according to Hayek, the rule of law is crucial rather than ideas such as equality and fairness because as he says, in order for a proper implementation of planning, the officials in the government should not be reserved by formal laws but instead be entrusted with unrestricted power. He argues that for planning to be effective, there should be an extensive agreement, so democracy is capable of creating a definite level of agreement. Legal equality is incompatible with material equality in the sense that economic choices are inseparable from the individual’s choices since planning increases contrary to the increase in the choices and freedom of members. Once the government becomes the sole decision-makers on the products to be produced, the individuals are left with limited choices and freedom.