Name:

Institution:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

Social sciences theories

Social theories are backgrounds of experiential evidence used to study and explain social spectacles (Macionis and Plummer 2005). There are used by the social scientists to bring out the relationship between historical debates using the most valid and reliable procedures. In a nut shell, social theories are a set of logical explanations about patterns of human social life. There are two methodologies used in the quest which include positivism and ant positivism. The positivism theory is based on the view that all known information is derived from logical and mathematical treatments and reports of corporeal involvement is the only source of the authoritative knowledge. Ant- positivism is based on the view that the social realm is not subject to the similar procedures of inquiry as the natural world.

Some of the social theories remain confined to the scientific perspectives and they strictly remain descriptive and objective. In the contemporary world, social science is used to refer to a wide scope of issues ranging from sociology, economics, political science and jurisprudence. There also exists social theories which are of an informal nature and their perspective is neither in the academic social nor political science. Such theories can be comprehensively referred to as social criticism or social commentaries. Numerous social theories exist and more are still cropping up. Social scientists have been fighting hard and researching on various social occurrences in the world (Macionis and Plummer, 2005). This attempt is aimed at producing knowledge in a bid to understand and explain the world around us.

For a single phenomenon a number of theories may be formulated by multiple social scientists in a bid to explain it vividly. Each of the social scientists armed with facts to support his synthesized information. The multiple theories revolving around one social phenomenon may exhibit similarities among them and contrasts may also be evident. The differences may be as a result of the methodologies used to derive the theories. The dissimilarities may be also as a result of the different views of the social scientists used to derive them. The social science theories comprises of two perspectives; the scientific perspectives and the theoretical perspectives. The scientific perspectives are the experimental derivatives and observations that support the particular theory. The theoretical perspectives are based on written logical explanations to a particular theory (Derek and Sheffrin, 2003, 4). Theoretical aspects assist in making sense of what has been observed. Statistics are used when designing theories to compare the observations to what is logically expected.

There exist a number of theories that try to explain economics. Two of the most famous theories are by renowned economists; Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Each one of them came up with economic theories that have been continuously used in the world for generations. Both theories exhibit a number of similarities as well as differences.

Similarities between Karl Marx theory of economics and Adam Smith’s theory

Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx made a critical inquiry into the world of business affairs. The chief similarity that occurs between the two theories is that they both tried to elaborate the economic situation in the world (Harvey, 2005, 24). Despite taking totally different stands each of the theory expounded on the forces behind the daily monetary transactions in the world. They have been both classified into a school of thought by the name, the classical economics. This school of thought of whom Karl Marx and Adam are the custodians insinuated that the free markets regulate themselves when free of any intervention. They both speculated an unknown force that controlled the market system without requiring an external force. Both also related the market system to political systems in their theories. Thus both of their theories were political economic.

Differences between Karl Marx theory and the Adam smith’s theory

There is an immense rift between the two theories by the two philosophers that are as a result of disparities in views between them. The main incongruence between the two theories is the ideologies used by the pair to express their finding. Karl Marx used a communist approach while Adam took a capitalistic approach. Karl Marx used a pessimistic explanation that the free market would crumble down to pave way for a more expansive system in which monetary benefit was not the main aim (Michael, 2000, 123). On the other hand, Adam hinted that the world was heading to a situation whereby every person’s aim would be making monetary gains.

Karl Marx’s enlightenments indicated that the world was slowly but gradually slipping into an expansive welfare whereby joint ownership of resources would be the order of the day unlike Adam whose clarifications on the future economic system gave a direction that it would be branded by individual ownership of property in which the distribution of goods would be determined freely by the market forces and the investments made by individuals. Adam insinuated harmony and growth in his theories unlike Karl Marx who saw instability, struggle and decline. Marx also stated that the class struggle would cause the crumbling down of capitalism due to the tension that would arise between the capitalist and the workers which is incongruent to Adam who predicted prosperity of capitalism if the governments gave the economies a laissez-faire approach (Derek and Sheffrin, 2003, 112). Therefore, their theories are seen to yield controversy in this view.

References

Brass, T. (2011). Labour regime, change in the 21st century. New Jersey: Brill LTD.

Derek, I and Sheffrin, H. (2003). Economic principles in action. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Pearson.

Harvey, D. (2005). The new imperialism. London: Oxford University Press.

Macionis, J and Plummer, K. (2005). Sociology: A global introduction (3rd ED). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Michael, P (2000). The invention of capitalism. Cambridge: Duke University Press.