POL101Y1 Reading Summary Compilation.doc

67 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Political Science
Jeffrey Kopstein

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 the Modern Week 1 - Reading Notes September 21 , 2011 – Emma Murray Introduction • 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 did • Peace and freedom could only be found through representative government • Rep. Gov. was totally unknown to the people of antiquity History • Many claim traces of Rep.Gov. Among some ancient peoples ex. Gauls, Sparta Sparta • What Sparta had was a monastic aristocracy • The power of the kings was limited by the magistrates, not by elected officials • Magistrates were nominated by the people – there were only 5 of them • 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 Gauls • “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 privileges • People had no rights and no safe guards Ancient Times • The mission of the tribunes in Rome was a representative one up to a point • 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 Representative Government • 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 advantages • Their social organization led them to want a kind of freedom totally different what representative government grants Modern Liberty • 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 individual • 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 cost • Can hardly see indiv. Influence – exercise of political rights = only part of ancient benefits • Increase of commerce and communication has multiplied the means of personal happiness • 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 public opinion • 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 Ancient Liberty • 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 of individuals • 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 superiors • 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 in chains • 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 magistrates; VI. Call the magistrates to appear in front of the assembled people; 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 cherished • 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 power • 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 civilizations flourished Athens • 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) Jean–Jacques Rousseau • 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 Montesquieu • 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 the monarchy • It should instead be attributed to the difference between the spirit of ancient times vs. modern times Constant’s Conclusion • 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 independence • 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 of it • Commerce, by creating credit, places authority itself in a position of dependence • 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 competent • 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 political liberty 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. Bourgeois - 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 honored 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 globe 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 Proletariats 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 charm 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 unsure livelihoods - 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 bourgeois-controlled property 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 standardizes life. 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 • Etc… 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 own ends 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 dangers 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 theory 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 Proletariat. • 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 development • 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 Ages. • 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 exchange. • 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 ones. • 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 ground. • 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 his race. • 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 itself. • 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 equally inevitable. 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 propose policies. 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 stability. 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 society. 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 government. 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 state. 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 peace. 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 members. 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. Conclusion o Criteria for assessing existing and proposed electoral systems: accountability, representativeness, fairness, equality, effectiveness, accommodation, party cohesion, freedom for representatives, simplicity and precision. 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 Skeleton Notes: Introduction • 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 elected?) Main Body • 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 & governments want?  Accountability: Politicians will propose policies that correspond to majority & implement them to be re-elected next time 1st • 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 reasons • Believe some basic rights will not be infringed upon by government • Belief that they will win next election/place • Recognize that procedure is legitimate despite the outcome 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) government effectiveness  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 accommodating? 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 strong representatives? 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 sincerely • Ideal: Vote reflects as precisely as possible citizens’ preferenths o 7 criterion: Simplicity/Precision - Is the vote both simple enough and a relatively precise reflection of citizens’ preferences? Conclusion • 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 remove him. - In parliamentary systems, cabinet members tend to accumulate experience and the premiers have generally served in government before. - Parliamentary systems are more likely to solve problems of multiparty politics Comparing Democratic System – Donald L. Horowitz By: Sean Yi Hua [I] INTRO  Horowitz’s position: Promote Presidential system by attacking Linz’s praise on parliamentary system. 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 enhanced. 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 becomes polarized. 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 divided society. [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 system 2) Runoff election if necessary - However, 1) Presidents do not need to be elected on a plurality or majority-runoff basis. 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 mandate. [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 societies:  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 majority. 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 powers.  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 elections.  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 Stanikowski *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 power” nations 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 reform/shape. 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 practically. 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 rationalization • 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 was unattainable) • 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 industrialization • Nazis practiced modernization in order to pursue anti-modern aims Nazi Utopianism • 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 problems • Left wing Nazis went economically backwards, and wanted to restore an agricultural society, as they saw that it was the most utopian nd 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 times • For remedies to solve problems, proposed revival of the cults of the soil and sword • 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 th th • 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 th • Opposition to int’l conflict was a growing force by the early 20 century, however limited • 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 willpower • 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 unevenly. • 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 with • 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 policies. 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 Groups Involved • 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 industrial development • 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 the world. • 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 European societies • 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 industrial development • The elements of this culture of insurrectionism are well-known to historians of Leninism. • 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 production process. • 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 ruth
More Less

Related notes for POL101Y1

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.