Analysis of the Sources about Political Ideologies - Annotated Bibliography Example

First Seminar Log Question: What are the main ideas that underpin liberalism? Political liberalism rests on several ideas. The first one establishesthe initial phase of the exhibition of justice as equality as a self-supporting perspective. This initial phase provides the philosophy of justice that indicate the fair premises of mutual aid among citizens and indicate when the basic institutions of a society are just. The second phase of the exhibition takes into account how the well-organised egalitarian society of justice as equality could secure and sustain stability and unity given the sensible pluralism feature of it. Hence, to determine how a well-organised society can be established and unified, another fundamental notion of political liberalism is the idea of an ‘overlapping consensus of reasonable comprehensive doctrines’. In this form of agreement, the practical doctrines promote the political view, each derived from its own perspective. Social unity is founded on an agreement on the political view; and stability is plausible when the principles forming the agreement are confirmed by politically involved citizens and the conditions of justice are not severely opposed to the basic interests of the citizens as constructed and endorsed by their social consensus. Tomasi, J. (2000): Liberalism beyond Justice: Citizens, Society and the Boundaries of Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ideas that underpin liberalism encompass a broad range of political, economic and social importance. The idea underlying every interpretation of liberalism has traditionally been to describe the political association’s common good with regard to a nominal moral view, specifically, a fundamental value that most citizens have in common even with their numerous significant differences. The idea of political doctrines are neutral, and hence address the liberal doctrine of legitimacy, to the extent they can be defended by allusion to such common values, without presupposing the legitimacy of truth of any specific view of the good life. The liberal doctrine of legitimacy does not oblige that all citizens should agree with rules and regulations, policies, or court resolutions that are imposed by the liberal state. The idea of liberalism is that if most citizens consent to have several set of dogmatic codes control or normalise the fundamental structure of society, as well as the mechanisms by which certain laws and policies will be reached, then they verify the exploitation of political force even concerning the certain outcomes they detest. Rawls, J. (1996): Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. The author clearly illustrates the idea underlying liberalism by referring to the concept of legitimacy which is a very important component of theories on liberalism. The term ‘liberalism’ denotes two relatively divergent ideas, political and economic liberalisms. Political liberalism emerged with the attempt to set up a secular state wherein several religious variations would be accepted. It surfaced to oppose universalistic religious perspectives whose advocates were very arduous as to aspire to enforce those perspectives by coercion. Thus, in a sense, political liberalism was a creation to amend a current, dreadful problem. Its advocates were expressive and decisively influential. The remarkable aspect about political liberalism is that it appears to have accomplished the initial aspiration of its originator. It may have helped resolve the disorder caused by religious differences and it could even have facilitated the demise of disorderly religious zeal. On the contrary, economic liberalism developed, mostly by way of prominent perspective. This idea was examined and interpreted retrospectively instead of prospectively. It emerged devoid of a party, an ideology, or an intellectual programme. By the time Adam Smith, Bernard Mandeville, and other thinkers began studying it, they were exploring features of their own society, a number of which had been evolving throughout several centuries. Hardin, R. (1999): Liberalism, Constitutionalism and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The concept of liberalism is not independent, it is in fact interdependent. The existence of the political and economic aspect of it attests to this fact. Second Seminar Log Question: What was socialism? There is a significant disparity between actual socialism and what is argued to be socialism by regimes such as Cuba and China. Regimes might assert to be functioning for the greater good, but they remain subordinate to the state and not to the masses. These societies’ working class remains deprived of democratic power over the means of production. Socialism is not synonymous to communism. Socialism is required in order to establish a society founded on communistic goals. Socialism is not synonymous to fascism. Fascism eliminates individuals of different racial backgrounds for the sake of community and purity. Socialism accepts all types of people who desire to participate in the regulation of wealth that comes out from their labour. Polychroniou, C. (1993): Socialism: Crisis and Renewal. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Socialism today is different from the form of socialism espoused by great political thinkers such as Karl Marx. The concept evolved to accommodate changing realities. Normally, socialism is interested with both economic and social structure in a society. Property and wealth are collective, and their allocation and distribution are under the discretion of the citizens, who wield equal power over the government. The state or the community has possession of all the things employed for work production, referred to as the means of production, and hence could also determine production and distribution. In the social setting, because all, and not a small number of individuals, has the power over the means of production, gap between the wealthy and poor disappears. Everybody can expect reasonably equal distribution of wealth, thus all subsist at roughly the same earnings. Moreover, everybody has a position as a worker in a socialist society. In the point of view of Marx and Engel, socialism was a preliminary stage toward establishing communism, in which a society is stateless, and subjected to the absolute control of the masses. Schumpeter, J. (1992): Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge. Socialism promises social equality or a fair distribution of wealth. The author was compelling in his explanation of the idealistic premises of socialism. Socialism, ever since its foundation, has been interested with the situation of the working class, operating toward its advancement and for a society devoid of oppression and social inequality. The origin of socialism is a story of continuous struggle in the pursuit for stateless, classless society wherein the people are free to enhance their capabilities so they can be determine their own physical and material subsistence. Historically speaking, socialism arose in the eighteenth century as a response to the pivotal Industrial Revolution, an occurrence that strengthened remarkably the mechanism of the progress of the class struggle. Nonetheless, the early record of socialism is substantially classified within the premises of utopianism and idealism and deficient not only of a conceptual paradigm for examining and interpreting capitalism’s political economy and the importance of the class resistance but also an interpretation of the means by which deep-seated social transformation would take place. Marx and Engels furnished socialism with a material, systematic foundation of capitalism as a structure of oppression and abuse and a genuinely revolutionary point of view for the evolution to a socialist social system. The origin of socialism is intricately interlocked with the Marxist’s theory and praxis. Hann, C.M. (1993): Socialism: Ideals, Ideologies, and Local Practice. London: Routledge. Socialism is driven by the working class and not by the ruling ones. Its realisation greatly depends on class consciousness. Third Seminar Log Question: What is anthropocentrism and why is it thought by some to be a bad thing? The concept of anthropocentrism states that the world lives for the human race. Advocates of the theory would assert that humans can justifiably attempt to gain as much as possible from environmental resources. These claims are apparently intolerable to the environmental movement. Environmental advocates would claim that animals have the natural right to exist side-by-side with humans, and others would also argue that nature has intrinsic importance beyond its function to the human race. Several environmental principles take in some extent of anthropocentrism. There are even environmentalists who frequently argue in support of conserving and saving the environment for the human race. Objection to anthropocentrism is prevalent. The most basic argument in opposition to it is that animals, like humans, have feelings, and treatment of animals by humans should carry a certain extent of morality. Katz, E. (1997): Nature as Subject: Human Obligation and Natural Community. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Anthropocentrism implies great environmental destruction. Arguments against it are justifiable. Anthropocentrism asserts that humans are the most essential element and factor in the Universe. On the contrary, the biocentric perspective regards human beings to be no more than a specific animal species, with no greater inherent importance than any of the other organisms that thrive on the planet. However, critiques of the theory claim that it endorses the unstable growth of human population and the escalating quantities of environmental resources that are being used for the survival of humanity. There are obvious indications that the severe exploitation of environmental resources by humans is bringing about global ecological destruction and a reduced carrying capacity to maintain human beings, many other organisms, and numerous kinds of natural ecosystems. Majority of the assumptions that contradict the anthropocentric concept have a number of outlooks on the ‘greater value assumption’. This states that human beings are more important than other animal species, but rebuffs that other animal species are of no value. Dobson, A. (2000): Green Political Thought. London: Routledge. Anthropocentrism is rigidly human-centric. This kind of ideology should be replaced with moderate ones such as biocentrism. Anthropocentrism is a concept from environmental political philosophy suggesting an ethical system that is human-centric, typically in opposition to ecocentrism. The anthropocentric idea is that the human race is the only possessor of inherent importance or bear greater inherent importance than non-human element. It is hence justifiable to exploit environmental resources for human ends, a belief that has arrive for unrelenting criticisms from advocates of ecocentrism, who claim that it boils down to little more than human racism. Current ecological justifications of anthropocentrism assert that an anthropocentric morality is sufficient to the mission of establishing care for the environment. An adequately composite or well-informed interpretation of human welfare will recognise the importance of the non-human dimension to human beings in more than just economic-involved regards. If the presence of an environment that is anthropogenic is considered as vital to human welfare, then claims for environmental preservation can be originally anthropocentric but no more reliant than advocates of ethnocentrism assert to be. In fact, anthropocentrism enables these claims to be formed within a recognisable moral paradigm. Humphrey, M. (2002): Preservation versus People? Nature, Humanity and Political Philosophy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Anthropocentrism can assume a limited middle ground. Its application merely depends on the interpretation of modern environmentalists. Fourth Seminar Log Question: Why is fundamentalism so attractive to certain people? Fundamentalism is appealing to some people because it has an ethnocentric outlook. The fundamentalist articulate people’s belief, their faith, and their religion. Consequently there is megalomania; fundamentalists are assured that they know and they have the solution, or they can easily solve the problem. Why does fundamentalism possess such a forceful attractiveness? If Marx referred to religion as the ‘opium of the people’ then fundamentalism is a desensitising analgesic. Instead of improbability fundamentalism presents assurance, instead of difficulty fundamentalism presents plainness, instead of moral uncertainty fundamentalism presents moral transparency, they inform people what is precisely good and precisely bad. Rather than cultural adulteration and interbreeding fundamentalism presents purity; interbreeding is life’s nature, not only life at present, not only immigrations; life has constantly been about interbreeding. Hood, W., Hill, P. & Williamson, W.P. (2005): The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism. New York: Guilford Press. Fundamentalism guarantees simplicity in a rather complex world, which is its best appeal. Fundamentalism appears to be developing all over the world. Articulate fundamentalist leaders assert religious power, supposedly obtained from God. They also lay out morality for their adherents according to their particular interpretation of Truth. Faithfulness to this organisation becomes likened to discovering a ‘true’ religion that satisfies the spiritual needs of an individual. Fundamentalist religious organisations make use of ‘morality’ to determine what is right and what is wrong in accordance to their specific norms, which involve particular classifications for what is ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ social and sexual conduct. In this manner, leader of a fundamentalist religious group acquires psychological supremacy over devotees, numerous of whom are thankful to find that by conforming to the leader’s explanations of morality, good and evil, right and wrong appear unambiguous. Fundamentalism is appealing to some people because it offers a way out from the complex struggle with inner debates about truthful moral decisions that almost all people confront daily. Kaplan, L. (1992): Fundamentalism in Comparative Perspective. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Fundamentalist religious groups provide an escape route for individuals who are unsure of their moral standing. Undoubtedly, fundamentalist religious organisations commonly appeal to individuals on the undeveloped end of the economy. Commonly the adherents are destitute, unemployed individuals, deficient of worldly opportunities. Yet they are not the most despondent of the despondent, which do not have the privilege of turning out to be devotees, much less organisers of fundamentalist societies, and are more interested with the essentials of survival. More often, members belong to the educated jobless or underemployed, or belong to lucratively hired engineers, teachers, medical practitioners and other specialists in the applied sciences. The reality the fundamentalist organisations rank and file and middle management commonly have educational backgrounds and experience in technical, applied sciences, and public employments helps clarify the reason fundamentalist has a tendency to interpret doctrines like engineers interpret drawings, as mundane guidelines and conditions. Haar, G. (2002): The Freedom to Do God’s Will: Religious Fundamentalism and Social Change. London: Routledge. The appeal of fundamentalism is not just limited to the poor, uneducated and jobless. Fundamentalism has different uses for different classes of people. Fifth Log Question: What is capitalism? Capitalism is an economic system wherein majority of the means of production is owned privately, and production is directed and distribution of income is largely through market operations. Capitalism has been pervasive in civilisations of the West since the demise of mercantilism. It was cultivated by the Reformation, which promoted diligence and thriftiness, and by the emergence of industry throughout the Industrial Revolution, particularly the English textile industry. Dissimilar to previous economic systems, capitalism made use of the surplus of production over consumption to enhance capacity to produce rather than putting it in economically idle ventures such as cathedrals or bastions. The mercantilist period’s well-built national states furnished the social prerequisites, such as standardised legal policies and monetary systems, needed for the emergence of capitalism. The philosophy of classical capitalism was articulated in the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and his free-market assumptions were extensively espoused in the 19th century. Kantor, B. (1995): Understanding Capitalism: How Economies Work. London: Boyars/Bowerdean. Capitalism has a long history. This economic system was established through the power and influence of well-organised states. Capitalism as a frame of mind is basically individualistic, specifically, that the individual is at the core of capitalist enterprise. This notion employs all the Enlightenment ideas of individualism: that every individual is unique, that society is made up of people who try to satisfy their own interests, that every individual should be allowed to satisfy their own interests, and that, democratically speaking, individuals satisfying their own interests will secure the greater good. Capitalism as a frame of mind id basically founded on the Enlightenment concept of growth and evolution; the major social objective of free capitalism is to generate profit, specifically, to make the economy of a country more prosperous and more profitable that it typically would be. Thus, in a notion gained whole-cloth from the concept of growth and advancement, the whole system of capitalism as a frame of mind is founded on the notion of economic development. This economic development has no prearranged goal; the objective is for countries to advance progressively more affluent. Bowles, S., Edwards, R. & Roosevelt, F. (2005): Understanding Capitalism: Competition, Command, and Change. New York: Oxford University Press. Capitalism is also an intangible concept, a way of thinking. Its ideologies were formed by various social and religious organisations. Capitalism is a market economy system that failed to achieve full completion until the regulated arrangements of the medieval and mercantilist periods had been wore down. Global economic development, during the past two centuries, has been attained primarily through the unregulated market system and conventional economic assumption has presented theoretical defence for it. Capitalism has been under continuous disapproval, that its intrinsic weaknesses necessitated that it should be adjusted by government interference, and that its intrinsic limitations would guarantee its eventual death. The constructive illustration for unregulated market capitalism is founded on individual liberty to achieve their goals subject merely to the restriction of law. An environment that is competitive, romanticised in perfect competition, symbolises the most competent system. Such a system indicates that all members gain: competition eliminates unproductive producers and guarantee that the lowest possible price is paid by consumers. Reisman, G. (1990): Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books. Capitalism has received its own share of criticisms because of its apparent weaknesses or limitations in the modern industrial world. Sixth Seminar Log Question: Why and how did they think capitalism would be eventually destroyed? The Communist Manifesto claims that the class struggle within the capitalist system is between the bourgeoisie or the owners of the means of production, and the proletariats or those who labour for an income. The fundamental prerequisite for the continued existence, and for the influence of the ruling class, is the creation and enlargement of capital; capital’s prerequisite is wage-labour. Wage-labour lies entirely on contest between the labourers. Marx and Engel elucidate that the working class will in due course emerge powerful through class struggle. The ruling class continuously takes advantage of the working class for their physical labour and inexpensive wages, finally to generate profit for the owners of the means of production. Marx clarifies that the proletarians become powerful because of revolutions against the ruling class as mutinies or formation of unions. Marx proposes that while there remains a class struggle, capitalism will be deposed by the working class only to begin once again in the future. Marx argues that decisive communism is the solution to class inequality amongst European citizens. Marx, K. & Eastman, M. (1959): Capital, the Communist Manifesto and Other Writings. New York: The Modern Library. The primary force that will topple down capitalism is the relationship between the owners of the means of production and the labourers. Marx and Engels state that the only class at present that is truly revolutionary is the working class. The other classes that wrestle against the ruling class, such as the merchant, are traditional, struggling to sustain their survival. Among the working class, though, the Old Society is by now past conservation. “Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests” (Moore, 1993: 58). Traditionally, the working class are also distinctive. Previously, when a class rise in power, it attempted to subject the entire society to its means of appropriation. Nonetheless, the working class is deficient of any personal property to maintain or enlarge. Instead, they should obliterate all means of protecting private property. Marx admits that he has observed the development of the working class through a disguised civil war, the revolution and the vicious deposition of the ruling class. Up till now, every civilisation has been founded on class exploitation. In order for a particular class to be capable in exploiting, though, its mindless presence should be sustainable, an assumed stability: on the contrary, the proletarians in modern industrial society are persistently enduring a weakening of their condition; they become increasingly destitute. The ruling class are hence weak to rule, for the reason that they cannot assure a survival to its oppressed within its oppression. Its demise and triumph of the working class are unavoidable. Moore, S. (1993): Marx Versus Markets. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. The rule of the bourgeoisie subsists at the mercy of proletarians’ labour. Marx and Engels thought that capitalism holds the seeds of its own destruction. They portrayed how the affluence of the ruling class relied on the labour of the working class. Hence, capitalism needs an underclass. However, Marx forecasted that the unrelenting oppression of this underclass would form massive resentment. Ultimately the working class would herald a revolution against the ruling class. The ultimate resistance would result in the deposition of capitalism and its advocates. Marx states that contemporary bourgeois culture “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” (Hunt 1974: 81). Subsequent to overthrow of capitalism by the working class, a classless society would surface founded on the notion: ‘from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs’ (Hunt 1974: 83). Hunt, R.N. (1974): The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Capitalism exists because of the continued existence of the underclass. But with the eradication of false consciousness, capitalism will cease to exist. Read More