POL101Y1 Reading Summary Compilation
Ordered in chronological order for your convenience. Yeye. Much love and appreciation for all
submissions. Hope that this document helps everyone greatly. Good luck with your exams and
have a good winter break!
The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of
Week 1 - Reading Notes
September 21 , 2011 – Emma Murray
• Comparing the liberty the ancients valued so much and the liberty that
is precious to modern nations
• Failure to distinguish between the two resulted in many evils during
the days of revolution
• France was force to enjoy benefits it didn’t want and denied the ones it
• Peace and freedom could only be found through representative
• Rep. Gov. was totally unknown to the people of antiquity
• Many claim traces of Rep.Gov. Among some ancient peoples ex. Gauls,
• What Sparta had was a monastic aristocracy
• The power of the kings was limited by the magistrates, not by
• Magistrates were nominated by the people – there were only 5 of
• Their authority was as much religious as political, they took part in
the actual administration of Gov. i.e. in the executive power
• Their power far from being simply a barrier against tyranny
sometimes because itself intolerable tyranny
• True of all the magistrates, even the elected ones
• “The regime of the Gaul’s quite resembled one that a certain party
would like to restore to us”(1)
• Priests enjoyed unlimited power • The military class – the nobility- had arrogant and oppressive
• People had no rights and no safe guards
• The mission of the tribunes in Rome was a representative one up to a
• They acted on behalf of the plebeians who were reduced to harsh by
the oligarchy when it overthrew the kings
• People still exercised considerable political rights directly – they met to
vote on laws and judge nobles who had been accused of wrong doing
• Rome only had traces of the representative system
• It’s a modern discovery
• The condition of the human race in antiquity made it impossible for
such a institution to exist
• Ancient peoples did not feel the need for it or appreciate it’s
• Their social organization led them to want a kind of freedom totally
different what representative government grants
• What is modern liberty? (That of the English, French etc.)
I. The right to be subjected only to the laws, and not to be
arrested, imprisoned, put to death or maltreated in any way
by decision of one or more individuals;
II. The right of each person to express his opinion, choose a
profession and practice it, dispose of his own property and
even to misuse it;
III. The right to come and go without permission, and without
explaining what one is doing or why;
IV. The right of each person to associate with other individuals—
whether to discuss their interests, or to join in worship, or
simply to ﬁll the time in any way that suits his fancy; and
V. Each person’s right to have some inﬂuence on the
administration of the government—by electing all or some of
the ofﬁcials, or through representations, petitions, or
demands that the authorities are more or less obliged to take
into consideration. • Moderns regard the right to choose religion, to the ancients this would
seem criminal and sacrilegious
• The smallest of modern states are incomparably larger than the largest
of ancient times
• There is a mass of humans beings that have the same basic nature
with different names and social organization
• War proceeded commerce- 2 ways of achieving same end
• Commerce is a attempt to get through mutual agreement something
that one has given up acquiring through violence
• Strong would never resort to commerce
• War is impulse, commerce is calculation; commerce replaces war
• War costs more than it’s worth- no longer slaves – all work must be
done by free men – therefore they no longer have time to participate in
the political system as intensely as previous societies
• The bigger a country is the smaller the importance allotted to each
• The abolition of slavery= less time for leisure/ political involvement
• The daily discussions, secret planning sessions would be fatiguing to
the moderns – individuals are occupied by hopes and enterprise- not
wanting to be side tracked
• Commerce inspires men an intense love of individual independence,
supplies needs, satisfies desires without government interference
• Every time governments do buiss. For us they do it worse at greater
• Can hardly see indiv. Influence – exercise of political rights = only part
of ancient benefits
• Increase of commerce and communication has multiplied the means of
• Main aim – to be secure in private benefits, liberty = the name for
guarantees accorded by institutions of these benefits
• Indiv. Indep. (I.I) First need of moderns – should never be asked to
make sacrifices in order to establish political liberty –none of the
institutions that hindered (I.I) are admissible in modern times
• People have rights, people can’t be torn from what’s important to
them, ex father and son
• Modern mouers are more complex and subtle, would be distorted it
you tried to define them – only way to reach and judge them is through
• Government can do things to people arbitrarily, there would be a
public out cry
• Moderns want to enjoy our rights, develop our own powers, watch over
the development of these powers in our children • All that’s need for the authority’s is general means of instruction ex.
Schools and teachers salaries, “provide us with highways but don’t tell
us which route to take” (10)
• I.I = Pol freedom in modern times
• You find almost none of the benefits (Jouissances) as parts of the
liberty of the moderns
• Jouissance of liberty, or whatever and there it means enjoyment.
Jouissance of our independence is just having independence and
finding it satisfactory to have it
• All private actions were strictly monitored
• No room was allowed for individual independence of options’, choice
work or especially religion
• The authority of the collective interposed itself and obstructed the will
• Authority intervened in domestic relations, the eye of the censors
looked into family life
• The laws regulate mouers (customs, habits, way of life) and as mouers
touch on everything, nothing that laws don’t regulate
• A individual is nearly always sovereign in public affairs but a slave in all
his private relations
• Citizens decide on peace and war
• As a member of the public a individual can interrogate, dismiss,
condemn, impoverish, exiles or sentence to death his magistrates and
• As a subject of the collective body a individual can be deprived of their
status, stripped of their privileges, banished, put to death, by the free
choice of the whole of which he apart
• Men were nothing but machines
• The ancient republics were geographically small, smaller than the
smallest of modern states, this made the bellicose*, often attacking
and being attacked by their neighbors
• War was the price the free states of antiquity had to pay to purchase
security or independence
• Manuel labor and even the business activities were entrusted to people
• Each people constituted a isolated family; enemies with other families
• People rarely trading, if they were they were a exception – distant
navigation was dangerous
• Consisted in carrying out collectively but directly many parts of the all
over functions of government coming together in the public square to: I. Discuss and make decisions about war and peace;
II. Form alliances with foreign governments;
III. Vote on new laws;
IV. Pronounce judgments;
V. Examine the accounts, acts, and stewardship of the
VI. Call the magistrates to appear in front of the assembled
VII. Accuse the magistrates and then condemn or acquit them
• They saw no inconsistency between this –collective freedom and the
complete subjection of the individual to the authority of the group
• Successful war increased public and private wealth in tributes (money
and goods loser was forced to pay) slaves and lands shared out
• Each indiv. Had real influence
• They were willing to make sacrifices to preserve political rights and
share in state administration
• Sacrifice less to get more – indiv.indepn. vs. polit. Rights
• Share social power among citizens = liberty
• Saw liberty as a guarantee that the benefits of life were to be
• Past – was liberty when people could bear hardship, now – only way to
get people to bear hardship is enslaving them
• All restrictions on indiv. Rights compensated by participation in social
• Social power damaged (I.I) In every possible war, without destroying
the need for it
• Roman censorship - had simple mouers, all lived in same town, no
trade/ business, spectators and judges of public power
• Simplicity of the mouers gave censorship it’s power
• Against free religion
*Ancient history, especially the period of time during which the ancient Greek and Roman
• Is a exception to the ancient liberty
• Everywhere else social jurisdiction was limited
• Had more trade therefore citizens had more indiv. Liberty
• Commerce created money circulation
• Anyone could be a citizen who could establish a trade or workshop
• Loved independence – would hate to be thought of as subordinate to a
magistrate • Was more subservient to the supremacy of the social body than
modern European, free, states
• Athenian Ostracism was based on the theory that society had complete
authority over it’s members – a person who was trusted, well supplied
with clients, had good reputation had an influence as powerful as that
of all the rest put together, ostracism could be useful (9)
• Didn’t suspect the changes in the disposition of man kind
• His ideas would bring tyranny in modern society
Adde be Mably
• Citizens should be entirely held down so that the nation can be
sovereign, indiv. To enslaved so the people can be free
• Wanted law to reach past actions
• Loathed individual liberty
• Despised Athens
• His ideas were bound to charm men lit up by recent victory
• Greek politicians only recognized any power but the power of virtue
• Current politicians’ only talk about commerce and wealth
• He attributes the difference to the difference between the republic and
• It should instead be attributed to the difference between the spirit of
ancient times vs. modern times
• Draws opposite conclusion – rather than weakening the security of I.I
we should extend our enjoyment of them
• Demands civil liberty along with other forums of political liberty
different from the ancient ones
• Governments have new duties; the progress of civilization, changes
requires govs. To show more respect of indivs customs, affections and
• People will defend indiv liberty
• Commerce changes the nature of property, making it harder to siege,
gives a new quality – circulation – political authority can’t deprive you
• Commerce, by creating credit, places authority itself in a position of
• Moderns – indiv stronger than govs, Ancients – govs stronger than indiv • Wealth is more readably available- wealth = power
• Commerce brings nations closer together
• There is a need for a representative system – people can “hire”
stewards to do political duties and watch them to make sure they are
• Threats to both are different- ancient – men solely concerned with
gaining their share of social power may undercut the system Modern –
I.I and our enjoyment of it might cause us to too easily giver up or
share our political power
• Happiness isn’t mans only aim, humans want to expand knowledge
and brighten their faculties, self improvement
• Poli liberty is the most powerful, active way of improvement
• It’s necessary to learn how to combine the two
• Institutions must carry out the moral education of the citizens – also
should dedicate themselves to influence public affairs and calling on
people to contribute
• Through this it give people both the power and desire to preform
Sept 26, 2011
The Communist Manifesto
Submitted by: Alice Paik
Section I: bourgeoisie and proletariats
Main aim of the manifesto: to publicize the view, aims and tendencies of the communists.
- Throughout history the oppressor and oppressed are in constant opposition to each other- the
fight always ends in a revolutionary reconstruction of society or in the classes’ common ruin.
- Modern bourgeois society sprouted from the ruins of feudal society and is a product of several
revolutions in mode of productions and of exchange.
- Class antagonisms have become simplified to Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
- Markets kept growing and demand kept increasing, manufacture couldn’t keep up which led to
the Industrial Revolution
- The modern bourgeois became powerful, taking over industrial middle class, pushing medieval
classes into the background. They came up with a series of political developments (bourgeoisie
gained exclusive political power and the state serves solely the bourgeoisies interests)
When bourgeoisie gained power:
- put an end to all “feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations”
- Eliminated relationships that bound people to their superiors - All remaining relations between men are characterized by self-interest alone
- Changed all occupations into wage-laboring professions, even those that were previously
Bourgeoisie are unique in that they can’t continue to exist without revolutionizing the
instruments of production
- this implies revolutionizing relations of production and all relations in society
- Thus, unique uncertainties and disturbances of modern age have forced Man to face his real
condition in life, and his true relations with others
- Bourgeoisies need a constantly expanding market, so it establishes connections all over the
At a certain stage, feudal relations ceased to be compatible with developing productive forces
thus, free competition replaced the old system and bourgeoisie rose to power
The key ideas of Marx’s theory:
1. All of history until now is the story of a series of class struggles
- underlying all of history is this fundamental economic concept that each society has a
characteristic economic structure. This structure breeds different classes, which are in conflict
(however, not permanent). History “marches” on and eventually the means of production cease
to be compatible with the class structure as-is
- As the existing structure impedes the development of productive forces, then this structure must
be destroyed. This explains the emergence of bourgeoisie out of feudalism, but also explains
eventual destruction of bourgeoisie
- Marx believes that all of history should be understood as the process in which classes realign
themselves in compliance with changing means of production.
In Marx’s theory
- history is shaped by economic relations alone
- History moves according to impersonal forces- the general direction is inevitable
- Later argues that modern class conflict is the final class conflict- the end of this conflict will
mark the end of all class relations
Positions some of the ways why the modern era is unique:
1. Class antagonism have simplified as 2 opposing classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat
2. Exploitative relationships were previously hidden behind ideology… now the veil has lifted
and everything is seen in terms of self-interest
3. In order for bourgeoisie to exist, they must continually revolutionize instruments of
production, leaving social relations in an unprecedentedly unstable state
As the bourgeoisie developed, so did the Proletariat. The notion that this class will eventually
destroy the bourgeoisie, is a concept/idea that must be accepted, or they will run into problems.
Proletarians live as long as they can find work
- can only find work as long as their labour increases capital
- They are a commodity and vulnerable to all fluctuations of market - Because of developments of machines and divisions of labor the proletarian’s work has lost all
Marx describes workers as soldiers and slave:
- distinctions of age/gender are becoming less important as all people are instruments of labor
- As soon as workers get wages from an exploitative boss, they are exploited by other
bourgeoisie such as his landlord
Past history of Proletariats:
- always struggled with bourgeoisie (rebelling against those who exploited them)
- Workers hoped to revive medieval status of workers. At the moment, workers were
disorganized, divided by geography and by competition with one another
- When they formed unions, they were under influence of bourgeoisie and actually served to
further the objectives of the bourgeoisie
However, with modern development of industry, the proletariat increased in number and became
stronger and more concentrated
- distinctions among laborers began to dissolve as all shared equally low wages and equally
- Workers formed trade unions and other associations
- Proletariat’s unification is further helped by increased means of communication made possible
by modern industry, allowing struggles to take on national character
- Other classes try to use proletarians to forward politically their own ends, they give them tolls
to fight bourgeoisie
Marx explains that only revolutionary class today is the proletariat
Historically unique proletariats:
1. Proletariats lack any property of their own to retain or expand. Rather, they must destroy all
ways of securing property at all
2. While past movements were started by minorities, proletariats are a vast majority and are
acting in the interest of that majority
Proletarian’s struggle is first and foremost national struggle. In order for a class to be oppressed,
its slavish existence must be sustainable, held steady. However, laborers in modern industrial
society are continually suffering a deterioration of their status; they become poorer and poorer.
The bourgeoisie are thus unfit to rule because they cannot guarantee “an existence to its slave
within its slavery.” Bourgeoisie in Modern Industry produces its own “grave-diggers.” Its fall
and the victory of proletariat are equally inevitable. This is also the reason why the proletariats
will be the fall of bourgeoisie.
Marx argues: the worker is commodified and seen as part of the machinery. He only matters in
so far as he produces and does not have control over fruits of labor.
Proletariats are a unique class because:
- connected by improved communication and by miserable existence they share in common
- Also in the majority in society and numbers are increasing - Proletariats have nothing to lose- no power or privileges they must defend (to help themselves,
they must destroy entire system) Because of this, when they have a revolution, they will destroy
entire system of class exploitation
Section II: proletariats and communists
The immediate aim of communists is “the formation of the proletariat into a class,” the
overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy and the conquest of political power by the proletariat
(abolition of private property).
The property/capital they produce serves to exploit them. This property controlled by
bourgeoisie represents a social-not a personal- power
In a communist society, labor will exist for the sake of the laborer, not for sake of producing
The goal of communism challenges bourgeoisie freedom.
Objections to Communism:
- no one will work if private property is abolished. In reality, it’s presently the case that those
who work don’t acquire anything and those who acquire things don’t work
- Others hold that communism will destroy all intellectual products. However, the
disappearances of “class culture” is not the same things as the disappearance of all culture
Communists are also criticized for their desire to abolish country and nationality
Marx says: working men have no country; and we can’t take from them what they don’t have.
National differences and antagonisms lose significance as industrialization increasingly
Marx believes: that those charges against Communism based on other aspects
(religion/philosophy/ideology) are not deserving of serious examination. Man’s consciousness
changes with the conditions of his material existence
1 step in working class’ revolution is to make the proletariat the ruling class:
- use political power to seize all capital from the bourgeoisie and to centralize all instruments of
production under the auspices of the state (auspice= divine or prophetic token)
• Abolition of private ownership of land
• Institution of heavy, progressive or graduated income tax
• Abolition of all inheritance rights
Confiscation of emigrants’ and rebels’ property
• Making all people liable to labor
When class distinctions have disappeared, public power will lose its political character, because
political power is nothing more than “the organized power of one class for oppressing another.”
Bourgeoisie society will be replaced by an “association” in which “the free development of each
is the condition for the free development of all.”
Marx’s interesting claim: - ideas of religion and philosophy are actually rooted in people’s material existence; particular
ideas are only the results of certain relationships of production
- The ruling class makes the rules that structure society and supports those ideas that forward its
Section III: Socialist and Communist literature
3 subsets of socialist and communist literature:
1. Reactionary socialism: fight against the rise of bourgeoisie and modern industry
- feudal socialists
• French and English aristocrats who wrote against modern bourgeois society
• Objected bourgeoisie because they were a threat to their way of life
- Petty-bourgeois socialists
• Would eventually lose its separate status and become part of proletariat
• Suggested the restoring of older means of production and exchange the modern means of
production and exchange into framework of old property relations
• Thus, this is “reactionary and utopian” and can’t accept facts of history
- German/”true” socialists
• Adopted French socialist Communist ideas without realizing that Germany didn’t share the
same social conditions as France
• French ideas lost all practical significance
2. Conservative/ Bourgeois Socialism
- reflect desires of segment of bourgeois redness social grievances in order to guarantee the
continued existence of bourgeois society
- They want advantages of social conditions generated by modern industry, without struggles and
3. Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism
- 1 attempts of proletariat to achieve their own ends
- Attempts were reactionary and proletariats have not yet reached the maturity and economic
conditions necessary for emancipation
- Therefore, socialists looked for new social laws to create the material conditions necessary to
free the proletariat. Their writings were important because they attacked every principle of
existing society, and are thus useful for enlightening the working class
- However, they lacked practical significance. Their “fantastic” attacks lose the justification
Marx argues: each approach fails because it misses out on a key component of Communist
Reactionaries fail to realize that the inevitability of the bourgeoisie’s rise and of their eventual
fall at the hands of the proletariat
Conservative Socialists fail to see the inevitability of class antagonisms and of destruction of
bourgeoisie Critical-utopian socialists fail to understand that social change must occur in revolutions and not
by pre dreaming or words
Section IV: Communists in relation to various existing opposition parties
Communists fight for immediate aims of workers, but always in context of entire Communist
movement. They work with those political parties that will forward the ends of Communists,
even if it involves working with bourgeoisie. They never try to instill in the working class a
recognitions of hostile antagonisms between bourgeoisie and proletariat, to help them gain
weapons to eventually overthrow the bourgeoisie
Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against existing social and
political order of things: they openly declare that their ends can be attained only by forcibly
overthrowing all existing social conditions
Final goals of communists is always a proletariat revolution and the abolition of private property
and class antagonism. They believe that history must go through a set of stages, even if it means
supporting the bourgeoisie in order to eventually make a workers’ revolution possible
Karl Marx - The Communist Manifesto
Submitted by: Angelia Jihye Do
• Manifesto of the Communist Party
I. Bourgeois and Proletarians
• In the earlier epochs of history, we hind almost everywhere a
complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold
gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights,
plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords vassals, guild-masters,
journeyman; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradation.
• The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of
feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but
established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of
struggle in place of the old ones.
• Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile
camps, into two great classes directly facing each other - Bourgeoisie and
• The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh
ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets,
the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the
means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to
navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to
the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid
• The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the
place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders
of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
• Modern industry has established the world market, for which the
discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense
development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This
development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; an in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the
same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and
pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle
• How the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of
development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of
• Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by
a corresponding political advance of that class.
• Serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a
counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great
monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the
establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for
itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway.
• The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
• It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to
this "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between
man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment".
• It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the
numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single,
unconscionable freedom - Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled
by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless,
direct, brutal exploitation.
• The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the
instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and
with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes
of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of
existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of
production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting
uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier
• The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the
bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle
everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
• To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn under the feet of
industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national
industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are
dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death
question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up
indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones;
industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every
quarter of the globe.
• The bourgeoisie , by the rapid improvement of all instruments of
production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws
all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization.
• The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered
state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has
agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has
concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this
was political centralization. • The bourgeoisie, during its rule of one hundred years, has created
more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all
proceeding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man,
machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-
navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for
cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the
• The means of production and of exchange, on hose foundation the
bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain
stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange,
the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the
feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one
word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with
the already developed productive forces they became so many fetters.
• Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange
and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of
production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to
control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his
spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is
but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern
conditions of production, against the property relations that are the
conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule.
• Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary
barbarism it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had
cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce
seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilization,
too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce.
• The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the
wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these
crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive
forces ; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more
thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for
more extensive and more destructive cirses, and by diminishing the
means whereby crises are prevented.
• Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor,
the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and
consequently, all charm for the workman, he becomes an appendage of
the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most
easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of
production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of
subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of
• The lower strata of the middle class - the small tradespeople,
shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and
peasants - all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their
diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry
is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the alrge capitalists,
partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new
methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of
the population. • But with development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in
number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows,
and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life
within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in
proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly
everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing
competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises,
make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating.
• This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently
into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition
between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger,
firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recogntion of particular interests of
the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie
• The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with
the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself,
whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at
all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it
sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus,
to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore,
supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general
education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for
fighting the bourgeoisie.
• In times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress
of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole
range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a
small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the
revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as,
therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the
bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the
proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who
have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the
historical movement as a whole.
• The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the
artisan, the peasant, all these fight against bourgeoisie, to save from
extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are
therefore not revolutionary, but conservative.
• All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in
the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious,
independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the
immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present
society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole
superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.
• Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already
seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in
order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under
which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The seft, in the period
of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the
petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to
develop into a bourgeois. • The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the
bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the
condition for capital is wage-labor. Wage-labor rests exclusively on
competition between the labors. The advance of industry, whose
involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the
labors, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to
association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from
under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and
appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above
all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of proletariat are
Oct 3, 2011
Reading #3 Oct 3rd
Blais, “Criteria for Assessing Electoral Systems"
Submitted by: Anna Shi
o The choices of an electoral system are based on two sets of
judgments: 1st. empirical judgments- the likely consequences of the
various options. 2nd. normative judgments about how "good" or "bad,"
and "important" or "unimportant" these consequences are.
What should Elections accomplish?
o Two major reasons why we may be better off with elected
representatives than with a dictator. 1st. Policies adopted by elected
representatives are more likely to reflect the views of the majority.
2nd. conflict is more likely to be dealt with peacefully in a democracy.
o Holding of elections increases legislators' sensitivity to public
opinion and as a consequence, there will be congruence between what
citizens want and what governments do.
o The first mechanism is accountability. If politicians attempt to
maximize the probability of being elected (or re-elected) they will
o Policies correspond to the views of the greatest number of electors
and they will implement these policies if they are elected in order to
increase their probability of being re-elected next time.
o Once elected, legislators are free to do what they want. Electors
can’t re-elect if they feel their representatives have not done a good
job. This creates an encouragement for representatives to be sensitive
to the views of their voters.
o The second mechanism is representation by reflection. If electors
vote for candidates who best represent their views, the legislature is
likely to reflect the overall distribution of viewpoints and
perspectives in society. If opinions in the legislature accurately
reflect those in society, the decisions that legislators make should resemble those that citizens would have made in a direct democracy.
o No guarantee that legislator will not behave differently once elected.
o The second major virtue perceived in elections is that they allow
citizens to resolve their conflicts peacefully.
o There are three main reasons; first, they believe some basic rights
will not be invaded by the government. This is why we have charter of
rights and freedoms.
o Second, even though they may have lost this time, there is a chance
that they will win in the next election. They may lose in a federal
election but win in a provincial one.
o Third, because, even though they do not like the outcome, they
realize that the procedure is legitimate.
o The first two values that need to be considered are: effectiveness
and accommodation. An important aspect in electoral systems is
o Four criteria for assessing electoral systems: accountability,
representativeness, fairness, and equality.
o People who are concerned of these criteria wish to improve the
quality of representation? prevent mistreatment of some groups in
o Those who are more concerned with accountability give importance to
citizens' ability to throw the rogues out. Their greatest fear may be
protection of individuals/groups from oppressive mistreatment by
Reviewing the Debate on Electoral Systems
o The four criteria are prominent in the debate over electoral
systems, but other values are also invoked. Therefore, the list of
criteria has to be expanded.
o The first two values: effectiveness and accommodation.
o Stability is not on the list of criteria b/c stability over long
time may be a bad thing if the rulers were to rule for a long time.
o States cannot fully function if governments are re-formed every
month. We want an effective government that is capable of managing the
o Too much instability is perceived to weaken government effectiveness.
o Stability may be a necessary condition of effectiveness; however
there are others, such as a minimum level of unity within the cabinet.
o The parties in power must be able to implement policies it promised
during election campaign.
o We don’t want governments to have too power. We want open-minded
government, which is willing to make franchises to maintain social
o There is a tension between effectiveness and accommodation. A
government that is effective gets out applying the policies it had
encouraged during the election campaign.
o The debate over electoral systems also raises issues about the role
of parties in a democracy.
o Parties are essential in a democracy. As Schattschneider said, political parties created democracy and for this reason, we want an
election to produce a strong party system.
o This may create another problem because voters can’t control their
representatives. We want parties but at the same time, we don’t want
parties to be too strong. We want our representatives to be sensitive
to our concerns and entirely control the behaviour of their elected
o The final issue concerns- quality of the information provided by the
vote. What governments do reflect what voters want, we should have
ballots with more options for voters.
o We should prefer a system in which voters are allowed to express
their specific views about the parties, the leaders and the local
candidates over one in which those distinctions cannot be made.
o We should also prefer an electoral system in which voters vote
sincerely rather than strategically, because the more sincere the vote
is, the more accurately it reflects preferences.
o For all these reasons, we should look for an electoral system in
which the vote reflects as precisely as possible citizens'
preferences. But precision cannot be achieved without cost. Of course,
we should also like simplicity.
o Criteria for assessing existing and proposed electoral systems:
accountability, representativeness, fairness, equality, effectiveness,
accommodation, party cohesion, freedom for representatives, simplicity
o We should aim for a solution that is satisfactory rather than optimal.
Andre Blais: Criteria for Assessing Electoral Systems
By: Julie Rho
*Criterion: Principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided
• Two choices of an electoral system based on two sets of judgments:
o Empirical judgments (likely consequences)
o Normative judgments (good/bad, important/trivial)
Why is it a good thing that legislators are chosen fairly?
2 major benefits of democratic elections
Conditions that must be fulfilled for goals to be achieved
• Criteria for assessing electoral systems
o Electoral system: set of rules which govern the process by which
citizens’ opinions about candidates and parties are expressed in
votes, these votes translated into the designation of decision-
makers Constituency structure (how many representatives?)
Ballot structure (how do electors express opinions?)
Electoral formula (what conditions must be fulfilled to be
• What should Elections Accomplish?
o Elected representatives > dictatorship
Policies adopted more likely to reflect view of majority
Conflict more likely to be dealt with peacefully
o How do we achieve congruence between what citizens &
Accountability: Politicians will propose policies that
correspond to majority & implement them to be re-elected
• criterion: Accountability - Does it produce
legislators and governments that are easily
accountable to voters?
Representation by reflection: Opinion of legislature should
reflect those of society (should have same effect of a direct
democracy if reflected accurately)
• 2nd criterion: Representativeness - Does it
produce legislatures and governments that are
broadly representative of the electorate?
o Second major virtue of elected representatives:
Allow citizens to resolve conflicts peacefully: 3 main
• Believe some basic rights will not be infringed upon
• Belief that they will win next election/place
• Recognize that procedure is legitimate despite the
o 3rd criterion: Fairness - Does the electoral system produce
legislatures and governments that are systematically biased
against certain groups or interests?
o 4 thcriterion: Equality - Does each vote count equally?
• Reviewing the Debate on Electoral Systems
o Consider: effectiveness, accommodation
o Stability: proportional representation may produce unstable
governments: Is it always good? Why?
No, stability for too long can be destructive, “bad” However, too much instability can undermine (damage)
Value of proponents of PR: compromise
• Must be able to implement promised policies, but
without having too much power
• Want balance: firm and open-minded government
• Consensus decision making: impossible, therefore, a
sense of accommodation is needed
o 5 thcriterion: Effectiveness/Accomodation -
Does the electoral system produce legislatures
and governments that are both effective and
o Role of parties in a democracy: important, but strong party
system produces problems
Electors do not have control over representatives because
party decides & individual legislator votes the parties’ ways
Want: strong parties, cohesion
Do not want: too strong parties
• 6th criterion: Party Cohesion/Freedom for
Representatives - Does the electoral system
produce relatively strong parties and relatively
o Precision of voters’ views on the ballot will increase likelihood
that governments will do what citizens want
Ex: Ballot in which you can express 1 -3 choice
accompanied by a formula that will take these other
choices into account
• Problem: complexity, costly
Voting sincerely > strategically
• Representation by reflection works only if voters vote
• Ideal: Vote reflects as precisely as possible citizens’
o 7 criterion: Simplicity/Precision - Is the
vote both simple enough and a relatively
precise reflection of citizens’ preferences?
• Criterions: accountability, representativeness, fairness, equality,
effectiveness, accommodation, party cohesion, freedom for
representatives, simplicity and precision
o No electoral system can satisfy all of these criteria
o Aim for a satisfactory solution rather than optimal
o Devise an electoral system that is devoid of serious shortfalls The Virtues of Parliamentarism (Linz)
Submitted by: Jesse Donovan
- When prime ministers falter their party can, with a majority in the
House, unseat them without causing a constitutional crisis. He can
resign without having to wait for the end of his term or a coup to
- In parliamentary systems, cabinet members tend to accumulate
experience and the premiers have generally served in government
- Parliamentary systems are more likely to solve problems of multiparty
Comparing Democratic System – Donald L. Horowitz
By: Sean Yi Hua
Horowitz’s position: Promote Presidential system by attacking Linz’s praise on
1. Illustrate Linz’s ideas
1) Presidential system has “winner-take-all” feature.
- A presidential candidate is either elected or not, but in parliamentary
system many shades of outcome are possible.
- President may believe he has a popular “mandate”, even if he has won
with only a small plurality of the vote. Thus, the potential for conflict is
2) The separation of powers that divides the legislature from the president
would promote conflicts.
3) The fixed term of president makes for rigidity between elections. Whereas,
under parliamentary system, the crises could be resolved at any time by
changing leaders or governments.
4) Separate presidential election produces weak cabinet and fosters electoral
contests. Thus extremists would have too much power, or the whole society
2. Linz’s ideas are NOT SUSTAINABLE. Because:
1) Based on regionally skewed and highly selective samples. (Latin America) 2) The analysis rest on a mechanistic, even caricatured view of the presidency.
3) They assume a particular system of electing the president, which is not
necessarily the best system
4) Ignore the functions that a separately elected president can perform for a
[II] PRESIDENTIALISM AND POLITICAL INSTABILITY
1. The parliamentary system failed at some places too!
- Linz often reference to Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, and Chile, and he
believed that Presidentialism has contributed the instability in LA.
- However, at postcolonial Asia and Africa, the reason of failure is exactly
parliamentary system! As Sir Arthur Lewis argued in his lecture on Politics
in West Africa.
- For example, in Nigeria, under the parliamentary inherited at
independence, a cluster of ethnic groups from the north has managed to
secure a majority of seats and shut all other groups out of power.
Then Nigeria embraced that presidential system. By choosing a separation
of powers, the Nigerians aimed to prevent any group from controlling the
country by controlling parliament.
2. Linz made irrational claims.
- Chile’s exacerbated conflict is traced to its presidency, while the
moderated conflict of the United States is said to have other roots.
- IRRATIONAL: Political success has many parents; political failure, only one
reason: the Presidency!
3. Linz twisted the presidency
- The presidency that Linz described is the straw presidency, rather than
the presidency in fact.
- Linz argued: in parliamentary regimes, coalition governments may form;
and government and opposition may cooperate in the legislative process.
- The above features are equally possible to exist in presidential system.
EX: US Congress is notorious for such cooperation.
4. False assumption leads to unstable claims.
- Linz’s claims:
1) The presidency is an office that encourages its occupant to think that
he has more power than he actually does.
2) Under presidential system, if a crisis happened during the fixed
presidential term, then the crisis would become a constitutional crisis.
Since there is no lawful way to bring down a failed president in the
middle of his term, but under the parliamentary system, a government
that has lost its majority in the legislature will fall, whether or not
elections are due. - Linz’s Assumption
1) The president will be elected under a plurality system or a majority
2) Runoff election if necessary
1) Presidents do not need to be elected on a plurality or majority-runoff
2) President should be elected by a different system, one that ensures
broadly distributed support for the president. This would alleviate the
problem of the president might have illusion that he has a broader
[III] MODES OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
1. The mode of election matters!
- Horowitz argued, sometimes, the problem is not the presidential system,
but the electoral method and procedure a country adopted.
2. Linz argued that the president by a majority attained in a runoff between the top
two candidates poses problem.
- The runoff may facilitate alliances among moderates, but it promotes a
conflict between top two candidates, the society might become polarized.
3. However, Horowitz claimed that :
The election of president by straight plurality or majority vote is not a principle in
favor with all those who have adopted presidential constitutions lately!
4. Linz especially discourage the Presidentialism in societies with deep cleavages,
but the presidential electoral system were successful in two severely divided
The Nigerian and Sri Lankan Case
- The Sri Lankans were concerned that a plurality election could result in
the choice of a president who enjoyed a narrow victory would believe he
In possession of a mandate, the Sri Lankans insisted on aggregating
second and subsequent preferences in order to produce the requisite
5. Conclusion: if only Nigeria and Sri Lanka adopted their presidential electoral
systems earlier, we should believe that their conflicts would have been
moderated by those systems.
Rather, the winner-take-all rules has governed the parliamentary system which
excluded minorities from power.
INSUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES Linz’s indictments on Presidential system:
- The rigidity of fixed presidential term
- The weak cabinet
- The prospect for abuse of presidential power
1. The rigidity of fixed presidential term
The fixed presidential system is not more likely to cause governmental crisis that
more flexible parliamentary system.
Although in theory, under the parliamentary system, leaders are easier to be
changed, but in practice, this case seldom happens.
2. Weak Cabinet
The weak cabinet under presidential system is partly due to the separation of
The cabinet, in the United States for example, is the way they are because they
represent special interests, so the president are NOT free in selecting them
On the other hand, strong Prime Minister, like Gandhi and Margret Thatcher
could dominate and reshuffle their cabinet with impunity.
3. Abuse of Power:
This is not the special feature for Presidential system!!!
[IV] CHOOSING AMONG DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS
1. Linz is right to worry about winner-take-all outcomes and their exclusionary
consequences in such societies.
BUT it is Westminster, the Mother of Parliaments, which produces such outcomes
as often as any presidential system.
2. What Linz truly meant:
Linz made an argument not against presidency but against the plurality
He was not in favor of parliamentary SYSTEM but parliamentary COALITION.
3. Insights on policy-making
Try to establish electoral system that foster coalition and government systems
that include rather than exclude
Try to choose presidents by an electoral formula that maximizes the
accommodation of contending political forces.
The Centrality of Political Culture (Lipset)
Submitted by: Jesse Donovan A prime minister with a majority government in a parliamentary democracy has
more power than a president. The opposition is free to debate, criticize, vote
against etc… but they rarely have any real tangible effect.
In a presidential system the reality is much different. The terms of the president and
cabinet are not set by votes in the legislature. Therefore party discipline is weak.
Congressmen looking for support in their own constituency may vote against their
party. An MP may not do so and must follow his prime minister even if it means
alienating constituency support.
The cultural factor
The author explains why most Latin-American democracies have not functioned like
the American system.
Economy: Long enduring democracies are found in wealthier nations of the world.
Poorer countries have been less stably democratic.
Culture: Protestant countries are more democratic while catholic nations tend not to
be as democratic.
Past British rule correlates strongly to democracy in countries.
Martin Lipset: The Centrality to Political Culture by: Nicole
*responding to Linz+Horowitz on the issue of Parliamentarianism v. Presidentialism.
-Prime Minister with a majority in Parliament is “more powerful” than a President.
-Votes in legislature can affect the Prime Minister's position, not a President's fixed
term; therefore party discipline in a presidential system is much weaker.
-Representatives in a presidential system are looking for constituency support, so
they can and will go against the party to win their seat.
*disciplined parties encourages the need for transformation of political protests,
movements; for example, the US absorbs protests more easily into the traditional
system than Canada handles protests.
-The article relates to culture found in countries, and then relates these traits to
whether or not a presidential or parliamentary system will succeed. Historical
institutions also play a role in this.
-Wealthier and more “Protestant” nations have older established democracies;
Catholic and poorer countries are less stable
We see that almost all post war new nations that have become democracies have a history as a British colony; other European powers who held colonies (Belgium,
Dutch, French etc) rarely lead to a new democratic country.
*this has begun to change recently, as we see a shift towards new “economic
Quebec: French Catholics in Canada less likely to support democracy, supported by
Pierre Trudeau's quote on page 82- calls Quebecers more authoritarian and likely to
follow the ideals of the church rather than governmental bodies
The difficulty with Islam and democracy combining is that there is no separation
from religious and public life, making it difficult to establish the ideals of democracy.
*culture is difficult to change, but political/electoral systems are much easier to
The Perils of Presidentialism (Linz)
The Perils of Presidentialism: Mostly the same points as above. Criticizing
presidential systems for: the inability to dispose of ineffective presidents, divided
politics, dual legitimacy.
Submitted by: Jesse Donovan
There are several new points against the presidential system.
- A possible consequence of a two candidate race in a multiparty system
is that broad coalitions are likely to be formed in which extremist
parties gain undue influence. This can cause the presidential election
to fragment and polarize the population.
- The necessity for a head of state causes a problem in countries that
use the presidential system. The head of state is supposed to
represent the entire population of a country. So how can a president
be the head of state and represent both the population and his own
party and its programs?
- The time factor. The inability of individual presidents to be re-elected
several times makes it difficult to accomplish major changes. This may
make presidents rush to accomplish what they set out to do in a hurry;
risking ill-conceived policy initiatives. Prime ministers, on the other
hand, do not have to worry about times constraints. They can take their time and plan out their course of action thoughtfully and
Oct 17, 2011
Fascism + Modernization
Henry Ashbury Turner
Reading Summary Oct 17
Submitted by: Alex Le
• Fascism is difficult to characterize, it is considered an authoritarian, inter-war
regime; not conservative nor is it communist
Fascism as defined by Modernization Theory
• Modernization= displacement of traditional societies by an
unprecedentedly thorough and rapid process of change, basically similar
everywhere, involving: industrialization, urbanization, secularization and
• Some argue that Italian Fascism and German National Socialism = agents of
modernization. Others argue that Italians through Fascism and Germans
through National Socialism attempted to ‘de-modernize’
• Comintern’s 1933 definition of fascism = “the openly terroristic
dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialistic
elements of finance capital”
• Fascism as defined by Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of
Dictatorship and Democracy = “an attempt to make reaction and
conservatism popular and plebeian”
Nazi Fascism (German National Socialism)
Question: Effort to ‘de-modernize’ or modernize?
• Social and psychological effects; moral relativism, anonymity, alienation=
regrettable by-products of change; others see them as grounds for
slowing/stopping change or modernization
• Modern industrial society incompatible with ‘true well-spring of social life’:
the folk culture
• Nazi leaders sought for fundamental transformation of social reality; not
revolutionists; wanted to turn the clock back to simpler times and therefore
looked to past models
• Looked to a mythic and eclectic version of the past ***** escape modern
world to a romanticised vision of harmony, community, simplicity, and order
of a world long lost (however, Germans never actually had this, and the view
• German National Socialism had little to do with mainstream socialism
• This thinking characterized as a utopian form of anti-modernism th th
• Nazi anti-modernism identified in the late 19 - early 20 century
• Nazis viewed technology as immense power; they wanted to have the
products of industry sans industrial society
• Paradoxically, during the third Reich, cities still grew, industry grew bigger,
women still entered the workforce etc. although opposition to
• Nazis practiced modernization in order to pursue anti-modern aims
• Disagreements among leaders as to which models of the past would correlate
with their vision
• Wished to restore the German people to ethnic purity that once was
• 2 major strands of Nazi Utopianism: The Left Wing & 2 nd Major Strand (There
isn’t really a proper name for the 2 ndstrand)
Left Wing Nazism
• Looked to Middle ages and early modern times for precepts
• Believed that the cure for modern industrial society lay in a revival, in revised
form, of manorial and corporate relationships + reconstruction of
responsibilities and restrictions
• Looked to halt, dismantle (even partially) the growth of modern industry
• Aimed to “save” the Mittelstand (Old middle-class tradesmen, artisans and
entrepreneurs), no focus on industrial working class
• Proposed concrete economic and social remedies for economic and social
• Left wing Nazis went economically backwards, and wanted to restore an
agricultural society, as they saw that it was the most utopian
2 Major Strand of Nazi Utopianism
• Embodied by men such as Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg
• They wanted to go even farther with their actions than the Left Wing Nazis
• Their Utopias were much more archaic, eclectic and farther away from reality
• For precepts, they looked to Early Middle Ages, Pre-Christian and pre-civilized
• For remedies to solve problems, proposed revival of the cults of the soil and
• Looked to free the German people and return them to the agrarian life and
rededicate them to marital virtues
• War was not just a suitable means in pursuit of politics but an essential good
• Hitler in this group was especially indifferent to legislation, especially
legislation proposed by the Left Wing of the party
• Hitler was successful in forming the Third Reich (Nazi German State) Hitler
• Hitler =/= a mere tool of “monopoly capitalists” who launched WWII to
enable German Big Business @ the expense of human and natural resources
of other countries
• Central war aim was to conquer Lebensraum (arable soil in Eastern Europe)
• Raumpolitik; economic rationale; end Germany’s dependence on imported
foodstuff and therefore eliminate produce industrial goods for export
• Lebensraum; to provide new soil for displaced industrial workers and
resettlement after industrial production would have come to a halt.
Lebensraum also expected to open the way to a vast new wave of German
colonization comparable to the Middle Ages
• German people would be freed from enslavement to factories; no need to
produce exports in order to pay for imports; inexhaustible reservoir of
warriors for future wars
• With racial purity supplemented by cultural purity, German society would be
restored to health
• Despite denunciations for materialism, Hitler still drove around the country
side in a Benz, and soldiers descended the sky from planes
Europe as a whole
• Modernization in the late 19 - early 20 century, old and settled patterns of
the past were disrupted and displaced on a large scale; society’s centre of
gravity shifted from the countryside to the city. Many torn from agrarian life
and thrust into an alien urban world
• Cultural traditions were discredited, Religious traditions lost their ground,
secularism became a mass phenomenon
• Some embraced the changes, others didn’t
• Pacifism= opposition to war and violence
• Opposition to int’l conflict was a growing force by the early 20 century,
• For the first time, the impact of industrialization shown through: the
anonymous methodical slaughter made possible by mass weapons evoked a
widespread of marital values: Belief in marital values were deemed absurd
i.e. combat that pitted man against man in a contest of strength and
• To others, i.e. Germany and Italy, marital values still intact, resented
denunciations of war and heroic ideal.
• In both Italy and Germany, change began late, but proceeded rapidly and
• Certain sectors of their economies and certain regions of both countries,
change occurred and displaced many people involved in older modes or
production and distribution. • Some sectors were left unaffected, therefore some fear of change and
hostility towards those that had already changed
• Not everyone who joined or voted for the Nazi or Fascist parties had entirely
the same views in terms of anti-modernism OR Utopianism although they
were predominant in the leaders
• Politicians in fact toned down their views and platforms in order to gain
support, therefore, supporters may not have been anti-modernists to begin
• Therefore, the Nazi and Fascist acquisition of power cannot be attributed
acceptance of utopian and anti-modernism by the citizens
• Both Fascists and Nazis came to power as minority groups, they took
advantage of political opportunities when the parliamentary machinery of
two countries became paralyzed
• The paralysis of the states in these countries came about by deadlock of two
main parties that wished to continue modernizing
Other Fascist Regimes
• Some other self-acclaimed fascist regimes suggest extreme anti-modern
tendencies i.e. Norwegian Nasjonal Samling, and the Spanish Falange
• Other regimes do not hold anti-modern tendencies at all; they identified with
the fascists as they looked to Fascist and Nazism precepts after they had
come to power, by then the Fascists and Nazis employed some modernizing
Communism: A Retrospective in Comparative Analysis. Janos
Submitted by: Alex Le
Intro to Content
• Janos begins with 5 paradigms usethto define communism, however, the
paper goes on to examine the 6 paradigm outlined by Janos
• 6 paradigm; Communism as:
-the paradigm of “the externally oriented state” (principle of the primacy of
foreign policy and internal economics)
-the “reconstructionist” paradigm
-the “militarized society” paradigm
Background to Revolution
• country’s relative backwardness and its progressive economic
marginalization by the successful industrial revolutions of the West
• With its inadequate economic base, the Russian state found it increasingly
difficult to interact effectively with more advanced states in international
affairs • effective functioning of the state required the extraction of even larger
revenues from a relatively stationary economic base
• extractions created a growing sense of absolute deprivation among the
peasantry, the rising industrial working class, while its wages were advancing
compared to the peasantry, suffered a deep sense of relative deprivation by
measuring its condition, via a radical intelligentsia, against the much higher
living standards of the West
• Political discourse in Russia in light of this revolved around the issue of how
to remedy Russia’s economic backwardness
• Tsarist gov’ts experimented with developmental measures (1860 +), without
transforming Russia into a modern developmental. Tsarists abandoned the
traditional principle of divine right
• Populists opponents of the Tsarists; movement came out of the Slavophile
movement; anti-developmental stance, against modern industrialism, wanted
to save Russia from its “agonies”
• Socialists (before split into Mensheviks & Bolsheviks in 1903)
favoured an autocratic state, hoped that modernizing society from above
would create conditions for the rise of a democratic, socialist state
• Mensheviks bet on a bourgeois democratic state as the likely force of
• Bolsheviks became advocates of a political revolution independent from the
stage of socio-economic development
Against Bolshevik Position
• Mensheviks views-urgency of primary accumulation and industrial
development would force would force socialists to antagonize their popular
constituency and to end up presiding over “a political monstrosity”
Lenin and Trotsky’s Counter Argument (Back up the Bolsheviks)
• capitalist world economy was a single, interdependent system that like a
chain would break if and when one of its links was exceedingly weak
• Russia, with its overburdened state, apathetic peasants, and rebellious
workers, was such a weak link in the system, which made it an ideal, and
inevitable, choice for beginning the grand historical project of revolutionizing
• Russian revolution was not about revolution in Russia, but about carrying the
revolutionary conflagration to Europe and the establishment of socialist
organizations in all countries of the world.
• Bolsheviks rejected the idea of an internal design for reform and
development for an externally oriented strategy of reconstructing the
existing world order by means of revolutionary violence.
Leninist State • The Bolshevik version of world revolution required an operational plan of
fomenting insurrections among the proletariat of the most advanced
• Once these insurrections succeeded, the Bolsheviks believed, the center of
revolution might shift westward
• By this, Russian socialists might even surrender their leading role to more
experienced comrades. It was also believed that such victory in the capitalist
metropole would lead to a more equitable distribution of global resources,
thus salvaging Russia from the burdens of forced draft accumulation for
• The elements of this culture of insurrectionism are well-known to historians of
• Rebellion abroad, however, was only one side of the coin, for its counterpart
at home was an autocratic state in which the exercise of freedoms was
restricted to those in agreement with the political formula of the regime.
• This authoritarianism was that of a revolutionary state, because its
fundamental purpose was cast in chiliastic-salvationist terms that endowed it
with transcendental significance and infused it with all the mystery and
majesty of a final eschatological drama- Basically it’s the most perfect,
utopian form of gov’t
• Chiliasm (Communist Manifesto, Marx) refers to a condition in which
humanity would not only be free from material deprivation, but also from the
boredom and frustrations generated by the division of labour and the
• The Bolsheviks can demand sacrifices of themselves and impose it on others
with total disregard to cost: where paradise is the reward, the price in human
life and suffering is too easily paid.
• Conflict between the logic of total and single-minded devotion and the
intuitive irreverence of rebels ready to storm the bastions of traditionalism,
capitalism, and philistinism.
From Lenin to Stalin
• world revolution in favour of socialist development: project of capital
accumulation via the still existing private sector of small enterprise in Soviet
agriculture, and a developmental state that would extract surplus by means
of taxation and convert it into investment in light industrial enterprise
• Purpose of this strategy was to raise the standard of living of the Soviet
working class progressively and above the standards prevailing in the
advanced capitalist countries.
• Economic success of the design would create its own international
demonstration effect that, by the force of example, would persuade the
working classes of the superiority of socialism and lead to the progressive
liquidation of capitalism in the advanced countries of the world
• reasonable assumption that while Soviet society would enrich itself
peacefully, it might leave itself vulnerable to political aggression in the highly