Maria Angela P. Taruc
A – 51
1. One of the weaknesses of the idea of Marxism is its inconveniency of defining the needs of its people. And since it promoting equality, meaning no more monetary rewards, people will not be encouraged to work more, spend less hours on the job and there would be no competition nor motivation. Because everyone gets the same thing, resulting in no growth and progress in the nation they would be hard to be convinced by the government to work harder, and soon, demands of needs would basically outgrow the supply, ending in a logistical and economical nightmare. There would me massive absence of the basic necessities for the society. Maybe due to Marx’s depressed history, he thinks that everyone will work for the society and humans will evolve into a cohesive, organized society.
Functionalism often regards inequalities as simply filling a much needed role in society as opposed seeking out how and why the inequalities. For example, some could arguably assert that poverty serves a function in such a society. It looks at reality in an “everything exists for a reason” kind of view. Functionalists have problems explaining social change. They believe that is a society exists to fulfil their needs and duties, when these are done properly and are met according to the required amount then there would be no need to change. It only sees in a macro level theory. For example as it doesn't look at small groups or individuals in society then it may miss crucial factors that cause sociological points of interest. It could not work properly in big a group that has small groups within, like a nation that has different religions. Functionalists would be better off neutral in arguments because there is a huge chance that they’ll be biased and take sides.