On the eve of writing my first paper since my return to school. I have some reflecting to do in order to organize my thoughts on the communist movement as told by your friend (I should probably say comrade) and mine Karl Marx. I know that Karl's goal is the emancipation of the working people of the world from the oppression of the Capitalistic system. I, however, find his "scientific" view of the human condition to be limited in its scope.
As we talked about today Karl saw that the measure of humanity could be summed up as the need to create to be truly happy in life. Production of material objects made by the hands of man provided an outlet for the essence of man to be expressed. While this is irrefutably true, it is an incomplete view of humanity. Absent from this view are motivation, free will, love, and passion. I think that Karl sees himself as Prometheus and is attempting to give knowledge to people which he, as a more enlightened being must simplify and dumb down the ideas so that his people can relate and understand.
Why else would there be reason to simplify his premise for his view of humanity. I believe that Karl worked very hard at making his argument irrefutable. Karl found that the totality of the human condition posed problems for his argument, so he simplified his premises so that the problems presented by the unevaluated areas of the human makeup didn't get in the way of his grand reorganization of society. I believe that by doing this he has damaged the whole of his argument. One of the main differences with his argument, as opposed to other ideas of the day, is his "scientific" approach. By ignoring variables in any system a scientific theory loses its validity, and the scientist turns into a witchdoctor........ can this still be considered scientific?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Conservatism and Liberalism in the 1800s and today
I am very taken aback by the original definitions of liberalism and conservatism. The concepts are so ingrained in our society that one would assume there have been no ideological changes in the terms. According to our history text (Western Civilization since 1560) the concepts are very different than we know them today. In order to understand the changes these ideologies have gone through, we need to compare the current version of each to the original theories so that we can better understand what these theories of governance mean to us today.
Liberalism: as defined by Worldnet search is "a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution; an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market." In today's world, however, U.S. liberalism is best defined as social liberalism or social progressivism, which means that while still believing in freedom, liberals, believe that it is necessary for the government to ensure the welfare of the people governed both economically and by providing for their security. Today liberals in the U.S. government are also entering into the realms of manufacturing, banking, and other financial industries to protect the public from the pit falls of the market place. These beliefs have led social liberals to increasingly attempt to legislate or pass laws to dictate social behavior. In stark contrast to the current version of liberalism, Classical liberalism is as described by our text as believing that "individual freedom was best safeguarded by the reduction of government powers. They wanted to impose constitutional limits on government, to establish the rule of law, to sweep away all state regulation of the economy, and to ensure a voice in government for men of property and education."(Western Civilization since 1560 Volume II, page 472)
Conservatism: is defined by Worldnet search as "a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes." Today's conservatives largely hold to this definition based on the context of the U.S. Constitution, often referring to themselves as constitutionalists. Many of today's U.S. conservatives hold to the early ideals of liberalism. Freedom, limited government, rule of law, and the free market are the U.S. conservative core values. Increasingly, however more and more of today's conservatives are bastardizing their beliefs to the enjoyment special interests and whatever is the prevailing political wind of the time. In contrast original conservatism was "ultraroyalist or counterrevolutionary" (Western Civilization since 1560 Volume II, page 467) meaning that they wanted to return to the prerevolutionary governance of the monarchy.
What does it all mean? How does understanding the original philosophies help us today? On one hand it could be argued that there is nothing to be learned from this, variables in our society are too different from those in the past to make any kind quality assessments of what direction our free society should go. On an other hand it could be said that without the foundational knowledge of our political philosophies we cannot make any sound judgments on how to proceed in our society, or if our political, social, and cultural existence is in need of defense from attackers who would like to eliminate or change the government of, by, and for the people.
post script:
the entire time I was writing this blog I was watching the movie "Friday". I love that movie. I kept trying to get some of the fathers quotes in here but I just couldn't make it work. So, I'll put some here "Every time I come in the kitchen, you in the kitchen. In the goddamn refrigerator. Eatin' up all the food. All the chitlins... All the pig's feet... All the collard greens... All the hog maws. I wanna eat them chitlins... I like pigs feet." and one from Smokey "No sugar? Damn. Y'all ain't never got two things that match. Either y'all got Kool-aid, no sugar. Peanut butter, no jelly. Ham, no burger. Daaamn.
Liberalism: as defined by Worldnet search is "a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution; an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market." In today's world, however, U.S. liberalism is best defined as social liberalism or social progressivism, which means that while still believing in freedom, liberals, believe that it is necessary for the government to ensure the welfare of the people governed both economically and by providing for their security. Today liberals in the U.S. government are also entering into the realms of manufacturing, banking, and other financial industries to protect the public from the pit falls of the market place. These beliefs have led social liberals to increasingly attempt to legislate or pass laws to dictate social behavior. In stark contrast to the current version of liberalism, Classical liberalism is as described by our text as believing that "individual freedom was best safeguarded by the reduction of government powers. They wanted to impose constitutional limits on government, to establish the rule of law, to sweep away all state regulation of the economy, and to ensure a voice in government for men of property and education."(Western Civilization since 1560 Volume II, page 472)
Conservatism: is defined by Worldnet search as "a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes." Today's conservatives largely hold to this definition based on the context of the U.S. Constitution, often referring to themselves as constitutionalists. Many of today's U.S. conservatives hold to the early ideals of liberalism. Freedom, limited government, rule of law, and the free market are the U.S. conservative core values. Increasingly, however more and more of today's conservatives are bastardizing their beliefs to the enjoyment special interests and whatever is the prevailing political wind of the time. In contrast original conservatism was "ultraroyalist or counterrevolutionary" (Western Civilization since 1560 Volume II, page 467) meaning that they wanted to return to the prerevolutionary governance of the monarchy.
What does it all mean? How does understanding the original philosophies help us today? On one hand it could be argued that there is nothing to be learned from this, variables in our society are too different from those in the past to make any kind quality assessments of what direction our free society should go. On an other hand it could be said that without the foundational knowledge of our political philosophies we cannot make any sound judgments on how to proceed in our society, or if our political, social, and cultural existence is in need of defense from attackers who would like to eliminate or change the government of, by, and for the people.
post script:
the entire time I was writing this blog I was watching the movie "Friday". I love that movie. I kept trying to get some of the fathers quotes in here but I just couldn't make it work. So, I'll put some here "Every time I come in the kitchen, you in the kitchen. In the goddamn refrigerator. Eatin' up all the food. All the chitlins... All the pig's feet... All the collard greens... All the hog maws. I wanna eat them chitlins... I like pigs feet." and one from Smokey "No sugar? Damn. Y'all ain't never got two things that match. Either y'all got Kool-aid, no sugar. Peanut butter, no jelly. Ham, no burger. Daaamn.
Friday, June 11, 2010
"Can't we just all get along?" (Rodney King)
Wow...
After the first week of my history class, Western Civilization from 1500, I have to say wow, it is funny to think of how Uncivilized the world can be. We began the week (really last Friday) talking about the reformation of the church. The Reformation of the church refers to the disagreement between the Catholic church and the ideas of people like John Calvin and Martin Luther in the early 1500s. Luther believed that the church bureaucracy was corrupt and limited the common man's access to the Word of God. Calvin believed that our lives were predetermined and that we lived our lives by the mercy of God. Both Luther and Calvin believed that people should be educated and literate. The people who held with these alternative views or changes of Christianity we know as Protestants. To challenge the Church was to set an environment that pit people against each other in a very violent way.
In the mid 1500s in France many of the members of the nobility where Protestant(mostly Calvinist) while the king and rest of the nobility was very much tied to the Catholic church. Religious fighting, motivated by the desire to increase territory, power, and influence, occurred all over the country side causing increasing devastation to the infrastructure and the people. These violent and destructive occurrences remind me of the violent mob wars of the early 1900s in the United States. None more so than that of the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. In terms of the Mob, a hit was executed on the head of the rival family(Admiral Coligny). While the hit was not successful it prompted Don Corleone(king Charles) to make a preemptive strike on the other family leaders (protestant leaders). Starting out relatively small word got out and a full scale massacre was on hand (i.e. the hits to the Dons at the end of the "Godfather"). These tribulations were not isolated to France but extend to eastern Europe as well.
By 1618 in the Holy Roman Empire or HRE, which was located in eastern Europe around the area of modern day Germany, there was a fairly diverse mix of Protestant(mostly Lutheran) and Catholic areas. Politically, the HRE was a loose collection of principalities under one Emperor. The Emperor, was not in this case very powerful. Most of the power base seemed to lie with princes who ruled over the individual principalities. These princes chose what religion their people were to practice. So there was a hodgepodge of areas with a different faith in each town. This seems to me to be like territories of gangs in Los Angeles (crips and bloods). The "gang" war that results is not an informal war like we see in our cities but the motivation is the same. These motivations are territory, power over commerce,and a willingness to send your people into battle on an ideological basis (they are Catholics and they want to oppress you or those protestants are heathens and should not be allowed to live). For thirty years HRE is ravaged by war ending in 1648 with the peace of Westphalia.
Where did all of that violence and bloodshed get the people of France and the HRE? Politically, France is much stronger while the HRE is weaker but the people of these nations are suffering under the miseries and fallout of the war. I am a Catholic and I know the stance that my religion holds now is very different from the one that led up to, and greased the wheels of, these conflicts. However, I am very embarrassed that anyone who holds to the teachings of Christian faith could corrupt the faith by their actions done in the name of that faith. It seems to me that we as people of the world do very little learning from the past. We continue to make the same mistakes over and over again with no end in sight. Maybe it is just human nature.?
After the first week of my history class, Western Civilization from 1500, I have to say wow, it is funny to think of how Uncivilized the world can be. We began the week (really last Friday) talking about the reformation of the church. The Reformation of the church refers to the disagreement between the Catholic church and the ideas of people like John Calvin and Martin Luther in the early 1500s. Luther believed that the church bureaucracy was corrupt and limited the common man's access to the Word of God. Calvin believed that our lives were predetermined and that we lived our lives by the mercy of God. Both Luther and Calvin believed that people should be educated and literate. The people who held with these alternative views or changes of Christianity we know as Protestants. To challenge the Church was to set an environment that pit people against each other in a very violent way.
In the mid 1500s in France many of the members of the nobility where Protestant(mostly Calvinist) while the king and rest of the nobility was very much tied to the Catholic church. Religious fighting, motivated by the desire to increase territory, power, and influence, occurred all over the country side causing increasing devastation to the infrastructure and the people. These violent and destructive occurrences remind me of the violent mob wars of the early 1900s in the United States. None more so than that of the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. In terms of the Mob, a hit was executed on the head of the rival family(Admiral Coligny). While the hit was not successful it prompted Don Corleone(king Charles) to make a preemptive strike on the other family leaders (protestant leaders). Starting out relatively small word got out and a full scale massacre was on hand (i.e. the hits to the Dons at the end of the "Godfather"). These tribulations were not isolated to France but extend to eastern Europe as well.
By 1618 in the Holy Roman Empire or HRE, which was located in eastern Europe around the area of modern day Germany, there was a fairly diverse mix of Protestant(mostly Lutheran) and Catholic areas. Politically, the HRE was a loose collection of principalities under one Emperor. The Emperor, was not in this case very powerful. Most of the power base seemed to lie with princes who ruled over the individual principalities. These princes chose what religion their people were to practice. So there was a hodgepodge of areas with a different faith in each town. This seems to me to be like territories of gangs in Los Angeles (crips and bloods). The "gang" war that results is not an informal war like we see in our cities but the motivation is the same. These motivations are territory, power over commerce,and a willingness to send your people into battle on an ideological basis (they are Catholics and they want to oppress you or those protestants are heathens and should not be allowed to live). For thirty years HRE is ravaged by war ending in 1648 with the peace of Westphalia.
Where did all of that violence and bloodshed get the people of France and the HRE? Politically, France is much stronger while the HRE is weaker but the people of these nations are suffering under the miseries and fallout of the war. I am a Catholic and I know the stance that my religion holds now is very different from the one that led up to, and greased the wheels of, these conflicts. However, I am very embarrassed that anyone who holds to the teachings of Christian faith could corrupt the faith by their actions done in the name of that faith. It seems to me that we as people of the world do very little learning from the past. We continue to make the same mistakes over and over again with no end in sight. Maybe it is just human nature.?
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
