Class Notes (806,874)
Canada (492,493)
Sociology (3,199)
SOC203H1 (77)

march 11 2.doc

7 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George

LEC 8 th March 11 Politics as a vocation: true or false? According to Weber: 1) the state is an association that claims sovereignty over a territory p 78 2) authority is legitimate domination pp 78-79 3) charisma is the authority of the “eternal yesterday” pp78-79 4) in domination by virtue of legality, obedience is expected by virtue of devotion and personal confidence in revelation, heroism, or other qualities of individual leadership p 79 5) organized domination calls for control of a staff and of material means of administration p. 80? 6) states vary depending on whether those who govern own the administrative means p 81 7) the feudal vassal paid out of his own pocket for the administration of his fiefdom p. 81 8) the development of the modern state involves the expropriation of the autonomous and “private” bearers of power p 82 A. marx on ideas 1. two examples: * Religion: marx treats religion as a set of false ideas/beliefs which can be found in societies that are divided in terms of classes – religious beliefs exist because the exploited see “a bond in the medicine of their souls”, or – as a drug ie “religion as an opium for the people” - marx believed that although religious ideas are not to be trusted – revolutionary, it would be misplaced to attack revolutionary ideas in the hope that they will evaporate - marx argued: the task for revolutionaries was to get at the social causes of religious beliefs, mainly exploitation: and to get rid of this - To get rid of exploitation one must get rid of the struggles between social classes – a classless society is therefore needed - argued it was misplaced to attack religious beliefs through contrary beliefs - root cause of religious beliefs: exploitation, emerging in societies divided by class * the state: is an epiphenomenon --> this refers to something in the realm of appearances, or on the surface - opposed to the fundamental/root causes of things - for Marx, the state is an unwanted bi-product - the state exist to uphold the system of exploitation of the bourgeoise over the proletariat - the task of a revolutionary then, is to do away with the system of class and inequality, and then – the need for a state will disappear on its own accord - Marx is against the state – sees it as an instrument of exploitation 2. ideology = inverted ideas - refers to ideas that function to conceal the class divisions of society - ideology = a form of distorted thinking - examples: religion is a form of ideology, the laws that issues from the state is also distorted thinking, - we are persuaded by the state to think the laws are there for us all, but in fact they ensure the domination of one class by another - the class which has the means of material production, also has control over the means of mental production – the class that exploits the proletariat also has the means thru religion and law to fool the proletariat about the fact that they're really being exploited 3. an overlooked part of the German ideology - Marx plays down the importance of ideas - but he takes ideology much more seriously than one would have imagined based on his writings on religion and the state alone - Marx talks about how successful revolutions come together - premise: in revolutionary processes, it's not always the case that's its a question of 1 social class turning over another class – there are allegiances of subordinate classes that overturn the rulers - if one looks at the relations between these allegiances, there is typically a dominant element which is able to present it's own interest, as the interest of all the members of the allegiance - Marx says: there is a dominant element (the ideas of the bourgeois) that prevail among the coalition – they made their own interests SEEM like they were the interests of the poor and other groups - even among the subordinate classes, when a revolution is made, 1 element can have more authority than the others - but Marx’s insights stops here - Gramsci takes this insight of Marx, and runs with it B. Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) - was from Sardinia (it remains up till the 1960s primarily an agricultural society, and it was inward looking, peasants with herds would turn their back, for the most part, on the sea) - he went to Turin for Uni (which was among the most industrial parts of Italy at the time, in contrast to Sicily) 1. Italian context - late unification: - fragmented till the 50s, spoke many dialects in Italy – 1 indicator of fragmentation politically and culturally of the country - north-south economical differences: - industry concentrated in the north of Italy - the south is primarily agricultural - the power of the Church: - the word “totalitarian” in political science refers to certain regimes in the 20 century (ie nazi, stalin) – do not use this word for the Fascist regime in Italy (as it implies a 1-party state which has substantial ability to get rid of all counter ideas in society) - no analogy of the church to stalin/nazis - the church controlled the education system and had a strong local or neighbourhood presence ie people went to the priest for moral advice 2. Gramschi's life - From Sardinia, to Turin to study, lived this stark contrast between agriculture and industrial Italy - 1930: became a member of the Italian socialist party and wrote for socialist newspapers - interests: how can a socialist revolution be achieved in Italy? How to get a classless society in Italy? - 1921: co-funder of the Italian communist party - 1926: the fascists arrested Gramschi and sentenced him to jail for 20 years coz he was a communist - wrote a lot in prison - 1937: died in jail 3. making revolution: Russia vs Italy: - he joins a socialist party 1913 - 1917: the russian revolution - after the revolution, he traveled to Moscow to represent the communist party - at this time, there was a debate about communist societies outside of the Soviet - was joined there by other revolutionaries: wanna make sure that the example of Russia can be followed in other countries - does the russian revolution provide a model for how the revolutionists should proceed to encourage communism in their own countries? - Gramschi concluded: it would be a mistake to try and implement in Italy a strategy that had worked in Russia: coz of the relations between the state, capitalism and civil society – these relations differed fundamentally in russia from what they did in western Europe - in russia, Gramschi felt that the state was disassociated with civil Society – it existed separately from civil society and the economy and the church – so communists had to tackle the state and after THAT they could move society into the direction they wanted - these relations are different in wester Europe: the state has far stronger connections in civil society and the economy - example: think about Canada --> if revolutionaries took over parliament: society would not follow in lock-step: ie capitalists would be against them. Widespread feelings of illegitimacy, the church and military might not follow etc – outside the state, you find all these other supporters for the status quo - this contrast with Russia where capitalism 1 of all was not very developed, the church was not strong, and the peasantry was not strong - Italy in his days were kinda like what Canada would be like today if the revolutionaries took over - there are strategic implications too: it would be foolish to think they could take over Rome and transform it over night, it wont work - what must one do instead? - Gramschi believed that, the ruling classes in Revolutions, exercise hegemony 4 hegemony = leadership (involves consent, not coercion) - hegemony is a form of leadership - the working class would have to form allegiance with the peasantry - if communism was going anywhere in Italy, there had to be an allegiance between these 2 subordinate classes - would need certain compromises so that the working class would constantly negotiate with the peasantry to maintain hegemony - must contest the hegemony of society, that the bourgeois controlled = Gramschi believed in Italy of his day, the bourgeois successfully exercised hegemony and presented itself as the leader of society – as looking out for the interests of “society as a whole” - unlike Marx, he believed countries like Italy could not proceed straight to revolution, but had to first contest the ideas of the bourgeois,- had to contest the press, educational system and so on - leadership = consent, not coercion --> recall that Weber starts off with the question: “why do men obey” - he says that sometimes they obey because domination takes place (pure coercion, not coz they believe in the rightness of the ruler but they fear over their life or property) - when people obey for this reason there is coercion – but if people obey coz they feel those in command have a right to be in command, then we have authority - coercion does not involve consent - consent goes with legitimate authority - Gramschi says: in Russia, revolutionaries had to win battles by implying violence (they didn’t have to win society's hearts & souls) - in the West this would not be sufficient: would have to establish among many people here that the revolutionary proletarians should indeed become the leaders of society - Gramschi has not forgotten about the role of violence/force though– achieving leadership of the ideas of society must happen, but he also studied the means of violence and agreed that ultimately, violence would be necessary to achieve revolution - ideas are needed to prepare the terrain but are not sufficient – violence also needed in the end - how to deal with false ideology = fighting the idea of the church, ideas of popular culture, and combating folklore - Gramschi and later developments in the 20 Century in western europe: members of communist parties had a strongly held belief that the mass media stood in the way of revolutionists - Picasso ie joined the communist party in the 50s - another implication: the whole way of rebellion against imperialism and colonialism after WW2: after 1945 there was a boost in the numbers of states created, and boost in birth rates coz many states now achieved independence - point: he builds on Marx's ideas from last week and the implications for western Europe - Marx: certain ideas around religion can have a powerful hold over people but these are mystifications – even though they're mystifications, one can combat them. Not by counteracting them but by getting a classes society - Gramschi says NO. In some societies, states persist coz there are some institutions in society that buttress it – and revolutionaries cannot ignore the authority in which the state in western society is nested (the state isolated in russia, this is not the case everywhere) - In the west one must contest the ideas of the church, contest traditional ideas which encourage people to remain satisfied with the status quo and that blinds people to the way power operates in society – must contest the authority of these ideas and substitute them with other ideas Durkheim & moral authority 1. needs VS wants - need = an interest
More Less

Related notes for SOC203H1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.