text:
NAU-POS254-Classical liberalism and conservatism

Northern Arizona University

POS 254 Political Ideologies

Summer 2009

I. Liberalism
Liberalism, from the Latin "liber" meaning "free" is the attempt to promote individual liberty or freedoms. Liberalism ideals stem from the Age of Enlightenment. The early Liberals desired a more "open and tolerant society" where people could be "free" to pursue their own self-interests with little interference from religion or government. They often rejected many fundamental beliefs about earlier forms of government. For example, Belief systems such as the “Divine Right of Rulers or Kings”, hereditary tradition, Religious right to rule or govern and other examples that avoid the liberal assumption of equal dignity or individual worthiness. Emphasis is also concentrated on individual rights and opportunity. From this view comes the belief that all humans are capable of living free and have the ability to control and direct their desires to promote their own self-interest. Each philosopher that is described has their own view on human nature, whether that is naturally good or evil. Liberalism or those who believe in its values consider all human beings to be typically rational, sometimes self-interested, competitive people and are capable more or less of living free. This ideology is dominant among the Western World, where political debate on government principles of rationalism, consent, freedom of speech, press, etc are widely practiced and questioned on limitations and practices. "Religious Conformity"- Liberals believe in freedom of religion and a separation of church and state. During the middle ages, the medieval period, this was a counter-idea. The church became threatened by the idea of liberalism and called for the Kings and other secular authorities to enforce conformity to the Church doctrines because this was the "true and universal path to the Kingdom of God." Many times the Kings were trying to enforce their own belief system of who should rule and who will not. Religious leaders were often among the persons of royalty or better treatment, and liberal’s ideals threatened their way of life.

"Ascribed Status"- A person's social status if fixed at birth and there is little to nothing they can do to change it. Feudalism reinforced one's ascribed status when one lord or knight would give use to a "lesser" knight, or also called a vassal, for military service. The lord maintained land ownership and the vassal could only have the right to use it and enjoy it's fruits. Parcels of land would be split for use of others in return for other services creating more vassals to the land owner. Over time these relationships became hereditary creating ranks, statuses, and loyalties. Feudalism created two classes of people; nobles and commoners. The nobles became the aristocrats, the land holders and were believed to be superior to the commoners; the majority of the people who lived in towns also called the bourgeoisie, had no representation.

II. Revolutions
A. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

Wrote the first major work of political philosophy; Leviathan in 1651. He believed that "the people of a country should obey those who have power over them." He refused to believe that it was God's will (Divine commands)but one's self-interest(Natural Right). People needed to obey those in power as long as those in power protect you since the only reason for government is security. In his thought everyone was equal and has a natural right to be free. Created the idea of a social contract where governments would need to establish a "political authority" to provide security, protect society's interests since it was man's "restlesse desire for power." The government should be founded by the consent of the people and by establishing a government the people authorized sovereignty; do anything necessary to maintain order.

B. John Locke (1632-1704)

Wrote Two Treatises of Government as well as the Letter concerning Toleration. Both of these works were published after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 while he was in exile in Holland. In his Letter concerning Toleration he argued that it was "wrong for governments to force their subjects to conform to a particular religion." He believed that it was a public versus private matter and government should not be involved in any matters unless it threatens "public order." This idea of toleration for all sects of Christianity, as well as other religions, is in contrast to another man of the Revolution, spoken of above, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that a uniform religion was needed for a stable society, while Locke argued that confrontation would rise from restriction on beliefs by the government. An interesting note on this is that although Locke spoke for toleration he did not sympathize for atheists, believing that the oaths and other such pacts with them would not be upheld due to the fact that they had nothing to hold them to it, no moral code from above. He also spoke against the Catholic Church. This letter was understandably controversial.

In his writing of Two Treatises of Government (1960), he broke these into two pieces, hence the name. The First Treatise was written in contrast to Robert Filmer's Patriarcha which was in support of the Divine Right belief held by monarchs. The idea of Divine Rights is that kings are put on the thrown by God and have a divine right to rule, Queen Elizabeth was a believer in this. Locke could not accept this due to his belief in reason and every mans right to govern himself under the Lord. The Second Treatise was made up of 19 chapters, all dealing with property, natural law and other societal issues. He argued that everyone should be free and equal, as well as establish a government where one has "life, liberty, and property." He goes on to say that one can forfeit these rights but they cannot be taken away, and that people are unwilling to "respect the rights of others" so they need to enter into a social contract to protect these rights. This contract would be established to allow a political society that included laws and a government that could make, interpret, and change them as needed to protect the state of nature. If the government overstepped its duty of protection, the people have the right to overthrow it and establish a new one. This is where the role of government and the people could agree to create and obey a "limited or constitutional government." He concludes that it would be irrational to give anyone "total or absolute" control. John Locke describes the State of Nature, discussed above, as being the most basic world that human beings live in. In this State of Nature, we live by the laws of nature which determine, simply, that humans have the right to live as they choose but if they were to exercise their power in a negative way over another human, they would be betraying the basic laws of Nature. From this act, a state of war is derived from nature, which is when a man attempts to manipulate other men to do his will or by simply wasting food which would endanger the lives of other humans, who otherwise could have eaten that wasted food. Along with this, Locke discussed the two basic rights that humans have in regard to the laws of nature, which are giving man the right to punish those that betray the laws, as well as the right to prevent someone from doing so by ways of reparations. Locke also speaks a great deal about property and how one can attain it in this state of nature. He stresses that through labor a human has a right to acquire their own property. An example of this would be if someone were to gather apples. The apples one has gathered would be his because he gathered them for himself and no one would have the right to take those away because it is his property, and that would bring a state of war. Locke makes very clear that there is an a boundary to which someone can reach of overabundance, that is, if someone were to gather too much food or acquire more land than one could manage or properly cultivate to the full extent. In this over acquiring of land, food, etc., that person would be breaking the law of nature by not using what he has to its full use when someone else could be benefiting from it. This is where the theory of money comes into play; it puts a value on things that gives people the ability to acquire more than is needed to live. According to Locke, labor is the key to ones’ property; everyone has the right to claim their own property, as well as have the right to defend it if endangered in the state of nature.

C. American Revolution

Not a result of Hobbes or Locke's works but because of social, economic, and religious factors combined with philosophical and political issues. The United States did not believe the British government should be allowed to raise their taxes or establish a levy tax abecause they did not have elected members in Parliment to represent their interests. In 1775 the American Revolution began and became a fight for the rights the colonists believed the Parliament should have protected but instead violated.

Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense paved the way for the American colonists to declare their independence from British rule by printing rhetoric that informs the colonists that they should be a "independent, self-govering state." The government failed to protect their natural rights and violated them and because of this the government needed to be overthrown. They did not provide the protection it was established for. It now was a "necessary evil" that controlled the colonists lives.

July 2, 1776 the colonists declared their independence from England and wrote the Declaration of Independence; a document stating all of the violations of the King. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration, closely modeled the document after Locke's ideas; "... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are the Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..." The Declaration had flaws that colonists saw as "embarrasing" so they drafted a Constitution that took effect in 1789 that would provide a strong central government but with limited powers.

D. French Revolution

There was a desire to overthrow the "old order" of government that featured aristrocratic privilege, ascribed status, and political absolutism. The revoluationaries wanted to establish a limited form of government that would protect the "natural rights" of the French citizens. As the current government ruled there did not protect the citizens and refused to acknowledge their "natural rights." By overthrowing the "old order" they could establish tolerance, equality of opportunity, and a constitutional government. They believed that "Every man has a right to be free because all are born equal, and should have an equal opportunity to succeed." They also believed in "Fraternity". This meant that a citizen was not to pursue their own private interests but had a responsibility to participate in public life for the common good. As the revoluation continued it became more and more radical; wanting more democracy, help to the poor and less concern for the protection of property. Under the pressures the monoarchy fell and the Republic of France was estabilished September 22, 1792. The reign of terror began from June 1793 until July 1794, where the guillotine became the symbol of the revolutionaries, because citizens betrayed the Republic. Order was restored under the Constitution of 1795 where property-owning bourgeoisie was restricted and a five member Directory was created to head the government.

III. After the Revolutions
A. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

The original leader of the Utilitarians (Philosophic Radicals) focused on the masters that nature placed on man and looked into the utility of our choices or Utilitarianism. This idea was based off of the goal of making society rational, Bentham said that the first step is to recognize that people act out of self interest. More specifically he broke it down into people want to avoid pain and experience pleasure. He wanted to use this basic nature to improve the governments capability by understanding the people it is supposed to work for. He meant by seeking pleasure that people were seeking something that helps them achieve what they want, so the item in question must have utility. While people may not always be able to see what choices have utility and what choices cause pain Bentham felt that it was the governments jobs to ensure that while pursuing ones pleasure one doesn’t cause others pain. Based off of this idea of society two ideas about how the government were formed. First the government can serve the people’s interests and happiness by leaving them alone, agreeing with the laissez-faire idea. Second was the idea that the government cannot promote the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people if it was controlled by only a fraction of the society. He felt that almost everyone should be able to vote to ensure that the greatest happiness could be achieved.

B. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

A Utilitarian who wrote On Liberty he felt that the biggest threat to freedom was government, and therefore the greatest threat would be those that elect the government as the majority that control the government can use their power to restrict those that do not agree with the majority’s ideas. To prevent the “tyranny of the majority” by saying that the only reason power can be used on any member in the civilized society that is against the will of the member is to prevent harm to other members. One cannot use power to force a member to do something “for his own good”. As long as a member does not threaten or harm other members the government and the society should not try to control the members life. While the member may do things that the majority of society dislikes this cannot be stopped as only competition between ideas can lead to progress. He also felt that custom was something to be avoided as it held people back from reaching their full potential. Custom would hold back improvement due to the ridged structure and if life becomes one large custom then people will not know how to react to something new and different other than to follow the custom. This is a great threat as the new things or ideas may be of great importance to the people's lives yet the old fashioned thought would not allow them to be free.

Chapter 1 of Mill’s On Liberty is an introduction to the ideas he will be presenting in the book. The overall essay discusses the amount of power a government/society can justifiably place on an individual. Liberty, he argues, is unquestionably the right to any man/person (aside from children and “backward” societies) and cannot be taken away from the individual, unless certain circumstances arise. This is where the “harm principle” comes in, where Mill states “that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” He also discusses the protection against tyranny, both against tyrannical rulers and the majority that try to impose their beliefs and actions on the minority. Mill concludes that liberty is, first, comprised from within oneself, belonging of freedom of beliefs and thought, ideals and values. Secondly, liberty must come from the freedom of pursuits, to live life as one would choose to live. And, thirdly, it requires the liberty to interact with other free individuals, of consenting adults, in any way they so choose, aside from harming others.

Chapter 2, Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion is a discussion of whether people have the right to censure others ideas and thoughts, either of their own accord or through the government in place. Mill offers many examples that he discusses throughout this chapter and his belief that sometimes general thought, a majority opinion may be wrong. He goes through criticisms of silencing individuals and his responses to these. One example is that no matter if the person is right or wrong, they are rightfully allowed to speak their mind and “conscious conviction.” Mill responds that a person can only truly know if they are right or wrong by having the right to put out their ideas for public scrutiny to disprove them. Another is that the government is supposed to maintain certain beliefs that are seen as good for the public but Mill states that the use of opinions is not a detrimental thing, which they may serve for a good purpose. He discusses the histories of Socrates and Christ, using them as examples of radicals that are admired today. Both men spoke out what are now seen as truths and were both put to death for their ideas and words, acts seen as some of the worst mistakes in history. These deaths also didn’t silence the ideas, which kept growing and spreading. After this, Mill discusses opinion that is held as a common truth, if not confronted or objected, it will just become unrevolutionary, a dead idea that will no longer be understood. His main point is that discussion is always the basis for growth but only through a fair and understanding manner can it create a useful and thriving outcome.

In Chapter 3 John Stuart Mill writes that society needs individual autonomy except if harming others. “no one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. Mill puts limits on the personal freedoms he talked about in pervious chapters. Humans are imperfect and individualistic and need different experiences in life. Individual liberty is usually accepted by the majority of the population but individual liberty should not harm others and should be expressed in a way in which both the individual and community can progress. Community and humanity shouldn’t conform to each other. Change is a part of the human desire and whether the change is perceived as good or bad varies with the individual. He writes that any elimination or suppression of a person’s individuality and freedom is a form of tyranny. “The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement.” (Mill 80) Humans are different from each other and should be allowed to express and live their differences. However as important as it is for individuals to express themselves, it also should be respectful to other individuals and they should not be allowed to trample on their liberties. A society that encourages free thinking, the circulation of ideas, individuality as well as working together within society can be happy.

In chapter 4 Mill discusses if and when society should limit an individual’s freedom. Society initially had to put into place limits on government to avoid tyrannical rule and enjoy personal liberty. The tyranny of prevailing opinion however is just as evil as a tyrancial government. Government has been established to serve the majority of the people’s will. However while giving voice to some; it silences the voice of the minority. Mill claims that the majority opinion is usually biased due to self interest of that the group, whether opinions of the minority are presceved as right or wrong they have the right to contribute ideas and speak their mind. Mill argues that no one should impose their values on others. People have the right to behave the way they would like as long as it is the individual experiencing the negative consequences of that choice and not the rest of the society. Mill writes that religion should not be a factor in making a decision. Religion doesn’t make a person morally right or sound. The nature of humans shouldn’t be to conform to the majority values or religious doctrine but to explore possibilities and be spontaneous. Eccentrics are social outcast and are looked down upon or even shunned but Mill would argue that eccentric behavior is the mark of genius. To leave the norm of society and explore new ideas leads to a progressing society that is happier. Mills discusses that as important as individual autonomy and liberty is one must show respect fellow to individuals in the community. The individual acknowledgment of one to another is an exchange in protection within that society. It is the obligation of society to inform others if a person is harmful to others, and for those who do pose a threat it is up to the community to come to reach a consensus on the best way to punish. As important as the individual role is to society, society has a responsibility to the individual to help them grow into a rational moral adult. If the person is a threat to society, it is society that is too also be held responsible. When one is an adult, society looses the right to tell that person what is the right choice. If the person makes choices that is no harm to society but not a threat only an outcast to society, then it is still in society’s best interest to maintain that person’s right to liberty. The state Mill argues should create strong minded, educated individuals who think for themselves. Giving the government power is trusting and could have an unnecessary influence on a person’s life. Most power given to the government is the extension of a particular groups interest not necessarily that of what is best for the entire society.

IV. Conservatism
Conservatives have been identified as anyone who resists change. Michael Oakeshott wrote "On being a conservative" describes what being a conservative means: "to prefer the familiar to the unknown,to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to Utopian bliss." In his idea what makes a conservative is "politics intelligible is nothing to do with natural law or a providential order, nothing to do with morals or religion; it is the observation of our current manner of living combined with the belief (which from our point of view need be regarded as no more than an hypothesis) that governing is a specific and limited activity, namely the provision and custody of general rules of conduct, which are understood, not as plans for imposing substantive activities, but as instruments enabling people to pursue the activities of their own choice with the minimum frustration, and therefore something which it is appropriate to be conservative about." Conservatives believed that change would be a threat to their identity and could lead to extinction. Their beliefs are independent of religious beliefs of human nature and are concerned with the present, not the past or future.

V. Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Developed his ideas in response to the French Revolution. He believed the revolutionaries ideas and concepts of freedom was misguided and did not understand human nature. He wrote Reflections on the Revolution in France three years before the Reign of Terror began. In rejecting the revolution he began to see individuals in the organic view; relating to one another and to the society as you would relate to the human body; as one interdependent living organism. He believed that freedoms needed to be kept under control otherwise it may threaten social order. Without government control, people would endanger themselves and others. He thought government should include features that were desirable to the majority of society; representative government, a natural aristocracy, private property, and little platoons.

B. Michael Oakeshott Tradition is the main point to Oakeshott article “On Being Conservative”. Tradition is what guides political actions. Humans are to enjoy what is available rather than to look for something else. This reflection brings gratefulness for the inheritance enjoyed from the past. (but not holding on to the past because it is gone) To be a conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown. Oakeshott rejects the idea of utopian bliss presented in more liberal theories. Enjoying the present and familiar is what creates harmony and is the opposite of ignorance. The conservative disposition is to live in the present. To be mature is to enjoy what is available rather than look for something new. To live maturely isn’t to look to the future with urgency or optimism of what could be. What is important is to live in the present and fulfill one’s own goal and aspirations. Government should be a “limited activity, namely the provisions and custody of general rules and conduct.” Not imposing but enabling people to pursue their life in the way they would like to. The possession of private property permits a man to choose among groups and to move freely within society; and a freely competing economic system is the essence of personal freedom. Humans Oakeshott writes are lazy and find change tiring. To present change is a risk to their identity and the need for familiarity. Governments are there to reflect change not impose change. To rely on what is familiar is the opposite of ignorance and apathy. Individuals have always sought what is familiar he states, comparing how even ancient myth warns against innovation. The government should play a limited role. It is there to keep order and stability. It should be a product of structured familiarity and a product of reflection and choice. To engage in reform of morality or religion is to be inconsistent with the notion of individual freedom. Individual freedom can be pursued to its fullest when government is not enforcing morality and religion. Change should be a slow gradual process and only when reform is needed. To have innovation and growth means that there is a defect and thus change is needed in response to improve the human condition.

VI. Revolution and Reform
Reform is like an innovation which is stated to mean to do something entirely new which would mean that new would be better than old. It goes by the old ways and Burke says they want change based on abstract reasons. Burke said that the French Government were perfect but they do expect a change within the government and that is reform comes into place. Burke believed the French Revolutionaries are people who lived in a house with a leaky roof and broken windows. They decided that the French wanted to make new homes and to have a good shelter for the people but never had any experience with carpenter and architecture but had to do it to protect the people. Burke states “The revolutionaries had forsaken the tried and true way to reform for the path of innovation because it was safer and sure.” Reform and revolutionaries introduce Representative Government, Nature Aristocracy, Private Property and Little Platoon.

A. Representative Government 1774 Burke stated in “Speech to the Electoral Bristol” Certainly, Gentleman, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, and his satisfactions, to theirs and above all… to prefer their interest to his own. Burke was a member in parliament, but he has also favored democracy within the British Poll. The large landholders had the right to vote or could also stand for election. Burke thought that the interest of people should be represented with in the government, but did not have to vote to his or her interested should be well represented. Having the right to vote is to have the right person in office. Burke thought that democracy would threaten the representative government.

B. The Natural Aristocracy True Natural Aristocracy is the rare people that have the ability, the experience, and the inclination to govern wisely in the interest of the whole society. These people are also known as the natural leaders and also have the leisure for the children to study. These people are most like to come from hereditary aristocracy. Burke did not say that Natural Aristocracy and the hereditary are the same. It does take both to be somebody and to achieve something.

C. Private Property Aristocratic privilege was within a connection that Burke saw between aristocracy and property. Property was to be more stabilizing and conservative within the society. Owners of property, especially land would be more strengthen within themselves of what they own. They will be more interested in what they own and as well to use their property for their own usage. They have their right to do what they wish to please within their area of their property. Burke also discussed when a property that is being passed down from generations to generations to their family they show indistinguishable from one another. This proves the hereditary aristocracy.

D. The Little Platoons Powers should be spread out throughout the society. Instead of all the power given to the government itself and the local concerns should only be held with the local instead of the national. The rituals and beliefs like churches, families, and other groups should be respected with what they do. This is where government would have to be strong to protect the society of all rituals and religious beliefs. The little Platoons will make liberty possible will not be control over the government due to have their own separate powers. The Platoons will conduct their powers to share and to have their own separate control over the society, but will be one as a nation. You may have a nice singing voice but its better singing in a choir that you cannot make the melody on your own Burke stated as an example of Little Platoon.


text:
NAU-POS254-Modern liberalism and conservatism

Northern Arizona University

POS 254 Political Ideologies

Summer 2009

Modern Liberalism vs Modern Conservatism
Modern liberalism is based on an egalitarian view. According to this ideology, all humans, men and women, no matter what religion, race, or economic class, are to be “equally free,” and “ everyone is to enjoy equality of opportunity.” “We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security.” – Democratic National Convention Committee. Modern liberalism is divided into two types: welfare liberals and libertarians (neoclassical liberals). Welfare liberals not only believe in equality, but also that government should support those in need. The idea is that with welfare, “government can be a positive force for promoting individual liberty by ensuring that everyone enjoys an equal opportunity in life” (Ball and Dagger, p. 73). By supporting those in need, they have a greater chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By contrast, Libertarians stress the importance of limited government. Government infringement of liberty is only legitimate if in the interest of protecting people and property. These "Neoclassical Liberals (or libertarians) believe that we need to limit government to keep it from robbing us of freedom" and the more extreme libertarian anarchists believe that “we should abolish government altogether" (Ball and Dagger, p. 81). Libertarians believe governments rob society from as many freedoms as they find feasible, and the abolishment or limiting of government authority will prevent this. They are similar because they want less government intervention in people’s lives, but differ because Libertarians believe government intervention with welfare is counterproductive, whereas welfare liberals – as shown in the name – do not.

Modern conservatism, on the other hand, believes that the problems in today’s society are caused by “too much government.” They feel the government is overly-involved in regulating the free-market, imposing taxes, and investing in social welfare. One thing all conservatives agree on is their distrust and dislike of communism. Conservatives view selfishness and short-sidedness as human nature, whereas communists believe social conditions lead to the degradation of society, as opposed to inherent human traits. Conservative ideologies also tend to coincide with religious ideologies about morals, and ethics. “Our platform is presented with enthusiasm and confidence in a vision for the future, but also with humility – humility before God and before a nation of free and independent thinkers.” – Republican National Convention Committee. Today the conservative side is divided into two main ideals: the neoconservative side and the Religious Right. Neoconservatives feel the government needs to be stronger to support society, and favor military action to achieve national goals. They also stress that attitudes toward government are shaped by the overwhelming consumer ethos of "buy now, pay later," which encourages people to live beyond their means, and to expect too much, too quickly from government. The Religious Right believes that government action needs to adhere to Christian teachings. To them, the Burkean social fabric is already torn, and reactionary, religious-based policy can mend it.

Development of modern liberalism
Classical liberals reacted differently to the social effects of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. Some embraced the Industrial Revolution as the embodiment of liberal ideals. Others, however, were concerned for the increasing poverty and immiseration of the working class—and concerned that this class was increasingly attracted to socialist ideas. These liberals argued that government has an obligation to alleviate poverty and to improve opportunities for the poor. This debate caused a split in liberalism and out of it emerged modern or welfare liberalism.

Neoclassical liberals continued to argue that the government should stay out of individuals' lives except to protect their property and security. Government, if it is to leave as much room for the exercise of individual freedom, must be as small as possible. It emphasizes negative liberty, or a view that understands freedom as freedom from restrictions on speech, worship, and other encroachments on individual rights. According to neoclassical liberals like Robert Nozick, the state should be just like a "nightwatchman" or a security guard whose only job is to protect individuals and their property from force or fraud.

Welfare liberals, however, argue that government intervention in the economy and other aspects of life is sometimes necessary to prevent some individuals from denying freedom to others, and also to provide the conditions in which human beings can reach their  full potential. These liberals are concerned for the well-being or welfare of the individual. It emphasizes "positive liberty," or a view that understands freedom as freedom to, or the ability to develop our higher faculties and to realize our full human potential. An acorn will grow into a tree only if there are the right conditions for growth; the same is true of humans, they argue. The state should play a role in ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to make it in the world. This involves creating a safety net so that people don't starve or go without medical care and housing when they've fallen on hard times.

Modern liberalism reached the apex of its influence with the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s. It created programs such as Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, welfare, progressive taxation, and numerous other government programs. President Lyndon Johnson sought to expand welfare liberalism even further in the 1960s with the Great Society programs and the War on Poverty.

Modern Liberalism as Seen Today
Modern Liberalism seizes several important ideals of the Enlightenment.

People are all equal and modern liberals see government not as something to be completely restricted, but as a tool to facilitate equality. The base of economic centrality in the modern liberal ideology is that of government spending to make sure that everyone is equal. Modern liberals do not have a preference in faith or different types of faith. Nor do they suggest religion as an alternative for government and they emphasize the importance of the establishment and exercise clauses of the first amendment. The government is believed to be one of the people and modern liberals want to make sure that everyone is a part of it; not just the middle and upper class, but the lower class as well.

Modern Liberalism deals with freedom and democracy as being concerned with people being equals. The role of the government is then to promote the egalitarian state to everyone. This comes with the concept of government spending for schools, hospitals and libraries to insure that everyone is equal. The process of doing so is based on higher levels of government spending, as well as implementing policies that will benefit the poverty stricken.

“We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security.” – Democratic National Convention Committee

The Democratic Party’s 2008 Platform is made to ensure that people are to get the equality that modern liberalism is about. They do it through Keynesian economic- government spending- to provide core principles like economic stewardship, personal responsibility, shared sacrifice and a fair shot for all in order to provide for all the American dream of succeeding and will not discriminate in the case of race or gender.

They claim that the Bush administration's politics have caused skepticism towards democracy, and to counteract it, they wish to make the backroom politics and lobbying more transparent through technology, accountability, and the democratic idea of one person one vote.

Development of modern conservatism
Modern conservatism emerged in the 20th century in reaction to welfare liberalism. Economic conservatives in the 1950s (including Irving Kristol) argued that the state was getting too powerful due to welfare liberalism. Modern conservatism argues for classical liberal principles: the government's main job is to protect life, liberty, and property, and should stay out of the market. It also argues for a strong police and military. Modern conservatives thus simultaneously demand less government (i.e. less spending on social programs) and more government (i.e. a strong police, military, FBI, CIA, etc.). It emphasizes lower taxes (since taxes take money from the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor), reduced spending on social programs that welfare liberals tend to favor, a strong military and criminal justice system, and in international relations is staunchly anti-communist and supports the "war on terror."

Social conservatives, meanwhile argued starting in the 1920s that American society has become increasingly morally corrupt and should be reorganized according to the will of God. The task of government for them is to bring a sinful, wayward society back to Christian principles. It emphasizes Christian morality ("family values"), the nuclear family as the bedrock of society, and argues that the state should defend Christian values as well as rights and property.

Economic and social conservatives joined forces in the Republican Party in the late 1970s. This led to Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 and has been the source of Republican power until at least 2008.

In many ways, American politics today is defined by the conflict between modern liberalism and conservatism. The controversial presidency of George W. Bush and the 2008 election between Barack Obama and John McCain are examples of this conflict, which continues to play out in the news and in U.S. politics every day.

Modern Conservatism as seen Today
Modern Conservatism is more an opposition to modern liberalism than a core outlined ideology. They promote democracy through the already hailed government and institutions for all. They even encourage the freedom of all individuals. Modern conservatives tend to do this through the building of a strong and adequate military; with a strong military they can defend the country as well as others from attacks against democracy. They do promote the equality of sexes, races, creed, religions, and disabilities. Freedom is given to us and is the governments job to protect the liberties that we have. In the Republican Party’s 2008 platform they approach the military with a Theodore Roosevelt approach of- talk softly and carry a big stick, the Republican approach is more “Peace through strength- an enduring peace, based on freedom and the will to defend it.” They rely on the military actions for them to promote peace with democratic nations.

The government should cut spending in order to eliminate the deficit. To protect hardworking Americans the Republican, and other neoconservatives wish to give out tax credits to those who meet quite a number of criteria. They wish to keep jobs in the country and cut the government programs that do not work. The add that their needs to be accountability in the United States government as well a populist cry that Congress will not stop pork barreling their policies.

The nation is made up of individual thinkers that are seen in the humility of God. God and moral values are essential to modern conservatism. They wish to instill morality for the country. There are far more appeals to the moral sanctions and culture of the United States. The Republican Party adds that it will preserve traditional values because a child’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage that provides the best stability for child development.

Paul Starr and modern liberalism
Paul Starr is a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the co-editor of the liberal magazine, The American Prospect.

Starr believes political liberalism is more successful than political conservatism. He believes that liberalism is a necessity achievement by saying, “the general point here is that much of what democratic liberalism calls for on grounds of equal rights to opportunities for human development and political participation provides a return in economic productivity” (Starr, p. 146) Starr believes that when the government gives to society, then society then gives back in return thus leading to political and economic success for the nation. His view is that of a welfare-liberal in which he believes if the government helps support the poor, then in return the poor will have less to worry about and work harder in the work place and for society.

These ideas are developed after Starr reviews historical events involving the liberal movement in politics. “The world’s rich nations, it will be observed, are liberal democracies that devote a large share of their national income to social expenditures without destroying freedom or moral responsibility” (Starr, p.140). Starr thinks that since, historically speaking, the most successful governments in this world have been the more liberal ones, then liberalism is the right way to go. He proves his point by showing how “the introduction of workers’ compensation gave employers new incentives…led to reductions in workplace injuries” (Starr, p. 141). This is just one of his many examples where he shows that what was considered a liberal thought when introduced, has been effective once enacted.

Opposing Ideas:

Welfare Liberals are often opposed by neoconservatives, who believe it is important not to dive into the state deficit and is better to share the wealth. There is also the thought that government spending does not give the proper people the right to live in the free-market society with government regulations. Should one person’s well-earned pay go towards others who are not necessarily finding their own means? Or why not just have the fre-market decide about life?

Starr says the government should have a big role to enforce the equality of all. a As Classical liberals have said that the government does not have a role in the life of people. By enforcing equality, modern liberals put the government in the hands of public life. Why not just let the government protect the goals of individual and not to ensure equality.

In the case of equality there is the affirmative action question. This constitutes programs giving special consideration in education and employment to members of groups that have been previously discriminated against. By doing this aren’t we just discriminating towards others?

Kristol, Bork, and modern conservatism
Irving Kristol was born in New York City in 1920 and is one of the founders of modern conservatism, particularly the brand known as neoconservatism. He started out as a Marxist but soon became a conservative. Starting in the 1950s he edited some of the most influential conservative journals, and has written numerous books.

About Nonconservatism, Kristol says, “it is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspectic.” Irving Kristol points out how cutting taxes will actually stimulate the economy which is why they are good, not because of the popular belief that it gives the rich more money. He believes a welfare state is too risky, and other options need to be assessed to assist with the same principal idea of helping those in need. Kristol then posits there is a “steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity…” The American culture is becoming more and more immoral, thus making democracy less important to society. This can be shown by the poor voter turnout numbers in past elections (other than this past presidential election).

One argument to support neoconservatism is the strength of the American military. While liberal views are for "budget cuts" in the military to support the rest of the nation, Kristol points out how by keeping the American military financially ahead, it remains one of the world's strongest forces. Discussing recent wars, "the result was that our military spending expanded more or less in line with out economic growth..." In other words, with military spending, the economy of the United States also advanced. One way to support this is by looking at the Cold War era. During this time, the government spent a lot of money on military research and advancements, at the same time the United States economy happened to go through a boom.

Robert H. Bork (born in 1927) is a conservative legal scholar and author. In 1987 he was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan but his nomination was rejected by the Senate, in large part because his views were deemed too conservative. He follows a judicial philosophy called "originalism," which means judges should try to follow what the founders' original intent was in drafting the Constitution and its provisions. He was a staunch critic of the welfare-liberal Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1950s and 1960s.

Bork’s point of view is that modern liberalism is detrimental to society as it provides a breeding ground for the morally corrupt. “In our time that means left-wing politics, which offers a comprehensive world view and a promise of ultimate salvation in a utopia that conventional politics offer” (Bork, p. 85). Robert Bork is being sarcastic, and in fact mimicking the views of the liberal when he says this. He believes the liberal view of “we can fix everything and make everything perfect by making everyone equal” is impossible. In fact, he shows how the reason this came to be a popular belief was through “intellectuals” whose “members are generally critical of, if not actively hostile to, bourgeois society and culture” (Bork, p.83). In other words, the liberal view is nothing more than “disillusionment with its principles” furthering a social breakdown.

Bork points out how society’s liberal views helped communism, socialism, and “Naziism” gain political control. These liberal views society has allowed to infiltrate into the masses are what have caused some of the worst times in world history. “Nobody knew what that sort of blather meant in the Sixties and nobody knows now” (Bork p. 87). The Sixties, one can say, were one of the most influential times to the modern liberal movement. Right before saying this, Bork shows how many liberals have questioned how to keep the government out of personal lives, but few, if any, have come up with an actual answer to their questions.

Opposing ideas:

What about the equality of gays and lesbians? Modern conservatives promote the equality of races, genders, and religions but they do not provide equality for the gay and lesbian community. This relates to the religious Christian background that has arisen in modern conservatism. Also, this implies to the role of their tolerance of other cultures but imposing that other cultures conform to the moral upbringing in modern conservatism.

In terms of Bork's article, Can a little competition be good from within itself. Shouldn't the "intellectuals" be able to counter issues and statements that America has come up with during the course of history? Competition from within sometimes forces a state to be better by taking in the opinions of the competition.

Secularism is an idea that repels many from latching onto the society. They believe that everyone has their own religion they should uphold, but they impose Christian ideals on others in the belief that a Judeo-Christian nation is what the Founders intended. Enlightenment thinkers believed in the benefits of secular society, and that there should be a seperation between church and state. Classical Conservatives believe that the Church has a role because of tradition. However, in Today's society should there be an active role of religion in the United States let alone other states? This has torn Modern Conservatives apart and the creation of different factions have grown in response.

Traditional conservatives believe that a government should promote freedom and should not invade free-market capitalism. Individual conservatives believed that freedom is not ordered liberty but the freedom of individuals to compete in a market and reduce the government spending. Neoconservatism acknowledges the merits of an economy that can generate great wealth and strongly oppose government spending because if the government is spending money, then how can they be governing. The neocons attempt to remind people of their values and cultures and what it means to be a patriot to the nation. The Religious Right promotes the United States as a Christian nation and wants the government to impose Christian morals and values. The four factions have come together under former conservative administrations but have come to a crossroads over the role of government and they live in uneasy tension with one another.

Kristol brings up the point that the trend of Neoconservatism only happens in America, and with the coming of divided factions is this really a good thing for Americans? Again this leads to secularism. The Religious Right believes that Christian values must be instilled in all of us, but what about the principles of "Freedom of Religion." Neoconservatives boast an interest in the military of the United States. They feel it is the Nation's duty to defend democratic nations from nondemocratic internal and external forces because of the superior military might. But who made the United States the police and army of the world? Though a democracy is good for one country does not mean it will be good for another. Internal popular support might be then rising for socialism, and United States will then step in and stop them from it coming about, but isn't that popular government and who is to say the United States can stop that?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Northern Arizona University/Socialism

Northern Arizona University

POS 254 Political Ideologies

Summer 2009

I. Definition of Socialism
Socialism is a political ideology based on a classless society and public ownership of resources. Socialism is based on the idea that humans are by nature cooperative, as opposed to the classical liberal belief that humans are focused on self-interest and competition. Socialists believe that instead of competition, cooperation is the only way everyone can enjoy a fair amount of liberty, justice, and prosperity. Although there are several disagreements between socialists, a common belief they all share is that private property is the reason behind the separation of classes which allows some people to rule over others. The one fundamental conviction that all socialists share is that society as a whole, not private individuals, should own and control property for the benefit of all. (Ball and Dagger, 125) Instead of having private property and a ruling class, socialists advocate programs that distribute wealth and power more evenly. Contrary to capitalism, socialism calls for everyone who participates in producing goods to be entitled to a share of those goods. However, there are disagreements between socialists over which goods society should own and control. Those on one end of the spectrum believe that most goods should be public property, while those on the other end believe that only major means of production should be publicly owned. Most socialists fall somewhere between these extremes, but all agree that anything that contributes significantly to the production, distribution, and delivery of socially necessary goods must be socially controlled for the benefit of all. (Ball and Dagger, 126) Because of this, socialism promotes the duty to work and produce social products. Another issue that socialists disagree on is the question of whether control of public property should be centralized or decentralized. Centralized control assumes that property and resources are managed by the state. (This was the stance taken by the Soviet Union) Those who argue for centralized control say it promotes efficiency by giving the state power to plan the whole economy in the interest of the public. Decentralized control of public property means control would be in the hands of groups at the local level. Those in favor of decentralized control believe this makes more sense because the public property would be in control of those who directly feel the effects of the use of that property.

Socialism, like most ideologies, promotes freedom. Socialism's theory of freedom can be described in the triadic model, which, as with most other ideologies, consists of an agent, an obstacle, and a goal of said agent. According to socialists, the agent are not isolated individuals, but a community of individuals. These agents are brought together by economic ties; individuals in a socialist society are connected by their means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods. This individual is a member of the working class, who shares common goals, such as fulfilling work and receiving a fair share of the profits from that labor. Every agent must overcome certain obstacles in order to meet his or her goal. Socialists believe these obstacles to be either material or mental, for example the division of society into socio-economic classes, exploitation of laborers, and the ability of an individual to fully develop their talents. The ruling class is able to use capitalism to erect mental barriers, such as establishing a status quo where the poor are ignorant to any possible alternatives. As Marx and Engels presented it in The Communist Manifesto, "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie; to centralize all instruments         of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive     forces as rapidly as possible" (Marx & Engels, p. 42).

Socialism explains social conditions through economical and class relations. Socialists believe that it is exploitative and unjust if one class holds a majority of the economic power. As previously discussed, Socialism stresses the need for abolishing class divisions, believing that this will improve social conditions. Socialists argue that the division of the classes is one of the main sources of problems in society. They believe that this is because class positions dramatically shape a person’s identity, more so than race or nationality. Because of this, socialism promotes a classless society. Furthermore, socialists agree on the need to use any means necessary to create this classless society.

II. Historical Background of Socialism
Socialism was developed as a critique of the liberalism of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. While the name most associated with socialism may be Karl Marx, socialist views existed long before Marx. Plato presented an early version, as well as early Christians in the first and second centuries A.D. The Christian socialists believed they had a duty to share labor and worldly goods. The Catholic saint and martyr of the early sixteenth century Sir Thomas More advocated communal ownership as an antidote to the sins of pride, envy, and greed. In his book Utopia, he writes "Wherever men have private property and money is the measure of everything, there is hardly possible for the commonwealth to be governed justly or to flourish in prosperity...I am fully persuaded that no equal and just distribution of goods can be made, and that there can be no true well-being in human affairs, unless private property is outlawed and banished." (Ball and Dagger, 128) There were also many other critics of the competition and classes brought about by capitalism, including English Poet William Blake who wrote about the "dark satanic mills" that polluted the air and poisoned the workers, and novelist Charles Dickens who created the character Ebeneezer Scrooge to show the flaws of capitalism which rewards selfishness and greed. The recurring themes in the differing criticisms of capitalism were moral outrage and an appeal to science and history. These criticisms paved the way for several influential socialists.

Saint-Simon Count Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) was a French aristocrat who attempted to give socialism a "scientific" basis. Saint-Simon believed that human history is divided into successive periods, and new forms of society arise to take place of the older form that has disappeared. The old society disappears because the beliefs that it depended on are discredited, making the social and economic system that rests upon those beliefs lose credit as well. Feudalism and its basis in religion was replaced by the Enlightenment and its emphasis on science and technology. This created a complex society dependent on the coordinated knowledge and skills of many different types of people, making it unreasonable to discuss "the individual" as liberals did. According to Saint-Simon, socialism involves the recognition of the importance and complexity of this coordination, leading to the application of "positive" scientific knowledge to social and economic planning by an elite of experts. (Ball and Dagger, 130) Unlike other socialists, Saint-Simon did not specifically call for making private property into public property. He believed that through planning experts could anticipate and meet social needs, getting rid of the gluts and waste of laissez-faire capitalism. Both Saint-Simon as well as his disciple Auguste Comte favored the centralized control of social production, described in section 1. However, other prominent socialists, including Fourier and Owen who will be discussed in this section, supported a decentralized version of socialism. Charles Fourier Charles Fourier (1772-1837) was a French socialist. His vision of utopia derived from a mixture of mysticism, numerology, and a crude psychological theory. He believed that society is afflicted with over 140 specific evils, including commerce, selfishness, and deception. These evils are embodied in society's institutions, such as marriage, family, and the competitive market. They prevent the satisfaction of the 13 pleasures, which include the five senses and the pleasure of "harmony" which comes from the proper balance of the other twelve passions. Fourier captured his vision of a harmonious society in his account of the "phalanstery," which is a community of his idea of the ideal population, 1610 people, with residents who produce all they need and have all their passions fully satisfied. In this community, people will work voluntarily because they will work in areas they enjoy. With everyone's pleasures satisfied and people working freely, laws, police, courts, and prisons will not be needed. In his vision of socialism, society will be productive, prosperous, and free. (Ball and Dagger, 131) Robert Owen Robert Owen (1771-1858) was a British capitalist who converted to socialism after becoming upset by the effects of early capitalism. He believed that many evils were the result of a deformed social system, caused by capitalism rewarding greed and selfishness. He felt these values were taught to children, causing a defective education which resulted in deformed character. In 1800, Owen opened a model textile factory in Scotland that was clean, had relatively safe working conditions, instituted a reduced workweek, and offered education to children under 10 at the owner's expense. He worked hard to influence other capitalists to follow his lead, as well as convince workers to share his idea of a network of small, self-sufficient communities. In 1824, he moved to a 30,000 acre parcel of land that he bought in southwest and began the socialist community of New Harmony. Within four years his society failed, causing him to lose most of his fortune. He spent the rest of his life promoting trade unionism and advocating the establishment of worker-owned cooperatives as the nucleus from which a larger and more comprehensive socialist society might grow. (Ball and Dagger, 132)

Marx's Critique of Capitalism Karl Marx is known as an outspoken critic of capitalism, but he did believe that capitalism was previously a progressive force. Marx believed that capitalism performed three important progressive functions. The first was in hastening the demise of feudalism by breaking down trade barriers and opening new trade routes to Africa and the Orient, as well as in the European discovery of the new world. The second was in making human beings masters over nature. The third progressive force is capitalism's need for innovation, because in order to remain profitable industries must constantly revolutionize production. Marx considers all of these to be positive progressive forces, but he also believed that capitalism should be overthrown and replaced, giving many specific reasons. First, he proposes that capitalism is no longer progressive, it is now outmoded and has paved the way for communism, which he believed is a better form of society. Second, Marx believed that capitalism created alienation, and the alienation felt by the working class will lead to the overturning of capitalism by communism. Third, he claims that capitalism is self-subverting, and it makes the capitalist cold and calculating as opposed to allowing him to be a kind and caring human being. He maintained that he was not criticizing the morality of capitalists, rather he believed that capitalists did seemingly immoral things not because they are immoral or cruel, but because the logic of the system requires it of them. Marx explained that capitalism has created its own "grave-diggers" by unleashing forces that will eventually destroy it. The bourgeoisie created the class of the proletariat, and through unfair rule brought the workers together and taught them to cooperate. According to Marx, the proletariat will eventually begin the revolution that will overthrow the bourgeoisie and lead to the creation of the classless communist society.

Revolutionary Sequence This is the sequence that Marx saw as the evolution of the communist society:

Economic Crises --> Immiseration of the proletariat --> Revolutionary class consciousness --> Seizure of power --> Dictatorship of the proletariat --> Withering away of the state --> Communism. (Figure 5.3, Ball and Dagger, p145)

The “economic crises” refers to the economic downturns that are periodic in a capitalist society. The immiseration of the proletariat is the process in which the bourgeoisie are better able to survive economic downturns than the poor working class, who then become even more miserable after losing their jobs. The revolutionary class consciousness happens when the workers, set off by their dire situations, realize that their misery is caused by the system rather than themselves. They realize that they need to eventually overthrow the bourgeoisie in order to escape their situation. Seizure of state power happens when revolutionary class consciousness and the immiseration of the proletariat combine to spark the revolution. Through several possible ways, the proletariat will eventually overcome the bourgeoisie and take control of the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the period when the working class controls the government, controls in their own interest, and uses the apparatus of the state to prevent a counter-revolution. The withering away of the state is the transition period that will take society from capitalism to communism. Competitive ways will remain for a time until the bourgeoisie eventually fade away, and the dictatorship of the proletariat will no longer be necessary. The last step, communism, is when economic production will be planned and orderly, and distribution of goods and services will be based not on privilege or wealth, but on ability and need. The rule will be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." people of the state are "at last truly free." (Ball and Dagger, p147)

III. Conception of freedom, equality and democracy
The concept of freedom, from a socialist’s perspective, is based on the middle or working classes freedom from the oppression of the bourgeoisie. Socialists believe that there are certain rights and freedoms that society should have as a whole, and that by promoting value in capital you create a schism between the working and upper class. In a capitalistic society those who create goods are not given compensation equivalent to that of capital earned by the upper class. Freedom, According to Marx, could only be obtained if the ability to own private property was abolished. By eliminating classes based on wealth or capital, one would have effectively destroyed the class system and allowed members of the community to pursue more important personal aspirations. Socialists believe that at the core, humans are communal and social creatures and that individual property and wealth destroys that relationship amongst the different classes. According to socialist, in order for everyone to be free, no one can be allowed to make personal gains from work of others.

Freedom for socialists is not only freedom from the oppression of the ruling class but also freedom from capitalisms' effects on society. In order to be truly free one must be allowed to work towards personal goals and objectives without the stigma of personal wealth or gain. Socialist believe that if everyone is equal within the society, then no person would be able to have more political or personal power over another member. Each members' opinions and views would be equally respected and valued and everyone could decide what is best for the society as a whole. By eliminating capitalism, each member would contribute equally and society would flourish as a single unit ruled by all and not the elite. Once these aspirations have been accomplished, the parameters for a utopian society will have been created: a society in which the hard work of the individual, rather than his wealth, is man’s primary focus, and all discrepancies between the poor and upper class are abolished.

a. Theorists
== 1. Karl Marx == Karl Marx was born in Tier, Germany in May 5, 1818. Marx’s passion for politics started in his college days at Bonn University where he studied law and could be often found discussing politics in the local tavern. Karl did poor academically at Bonn and was transferred by his father to the University of Berlin where his father hoped that Marx would apply himself more strictly to his school work. In 1841 Karl Marx graduated with a doctorate in philosophy from The U of B and hoped that he would soon get a job working for a school as a philosophy teacher. The personal beliefs of Marx did not apply to the political status quo, and Marx was unable to find a school that would employ him. Marx’s failure to get hired turned him on to journalism; it was his work as a journalist that sparked Marx’s interest in the social and political importance of one’s personal wealth, prosperity, and the power of market forces. Marx felt that the system favored those with wealth above the poorer classes. After coming to terms with this personal revelation, Marx ceased to be a follower of capitalism and switched to his own radical form of politics. Marx was abhorred by the social and political realm of his time and believed that it could not be reformed from the tattered state that it was in (Ball and Dagger, pp133-134). Due to Marx’s political and radical affiliations, the police, issued a warrant for his arrest, banned his works and closed both publication offices where Karl had worked. Marx was forced to leave Germany and went into exile in 1845. Three years after his exile Marx published The Manifest of The Communist Party, commonly referred to as the Communist Manifesto. Marx died in 1883, before he could return to Germany.

==  2. Friedrich Engels == Friedrich Engels was born in Brahman, the kingdom of Prussia November 28, 1820. Engels was a high school dropout and was sent to work as a non-salaried office clerk. During his time as clerk Engels began to study the philosophy of Hegel, a prominent German philosopher at the time. In 1842, Engel was sent to one of the cotton farms his father had invested in and it was here that Engels first saw the living conditions of the working class. The experience he witness at the cotton factory inspired Engels to write “Condition of the Working Class in England” in 1844. After he began to contribute articles to the radical journal that Karl Marx was the editor of, having similar views of capitalism and politics in general, Marx and Engels soon became close friends. They started to write political works together using each others strengths. Their political jargon had them quickly exiled from Germany, Belgium, and France. By 1846 Engels and Marx had a following in England; they referred to themselves as “The Communist League”. In 1848 they co-authored the embodiment of their ideals in the Communist Manifesto which encouraged a revolution against the ruling class by the middle and working classes through unity. Engels died in London, august 1985.

b. Arguments in The Communist Manifesto
Chapter 1: Bourgeois and Proletarians

In the first Chapter of the manifest of the communist party, Marx explains his view of history. During his middle-life he was influenced by Hegel, a German philosopher. He puts forth his neo-Helgian view of history and elaborates on mans dependence and struggles with materialism. Marx's opening line, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" (Marx and Engels, 9) captures the intentions for the book. It explains that there was and will be class struggles amongst the upper and lower class; Marx claims the proletariats will rise to power over the bourgeoisie through class struggles. According to Marx, the proletariats are the working class and the bourgeoisie are the ruling class. The bourgeoisie, using the fruits of the working classes labor, exploits the proletariat to make capital for themselves. The idea that the Working class is not being treated equally is where the struggle between the classes comes from. Marx says that ironically the proletariat's are going to use the same weapons that felled the ruling class before the bourgeoisie against them. Marx believed that workers would rise to power through a revolution against the bourgeoisie. This revolution along with destroying the ruling class would also overthrow the capitalist society.

Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists

Throughout the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels discuss the main points of Communism. They explain in depth how to successfully achieve a Communist society. In chapter two, regarding the main relationship between the communists and the proletarians, he begins by saying that the communist’s goals are aligned with that of the proletarians. The difference between the two is that the communists will bring forward the interests of the proletariat and will represent the objectives of the movement. Marx and Engels write, “The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand the most advanced and resolute section of the working class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others…”(Manifesto, 484).

Communists believe that the way to eliminate classes is to abolish private property or individual property. Communists feel that the proletariat needs to overthrow the oppression placed on them by the bourgeois in order to obtain political control of their society. Marx claims that the abolishment of private property is the first and most important step in eliminating capitalism. In order for communism to work, all property needs to be seized and taken away from the individual and made into social property, so that it loses its ‘class character.’ Communists believe that having accumulated labor should not help the bourgeois to enrich themselves but help enrich society and promote the existence of the laborer. “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society…” (Manifesto, 486). This is stating that the bourgeois see everything as a means of production. They want nothing more than to acquire capital and they will continue to use the work of the proletariat for their own personal gains.

Towards the end of the chapter Marx and Engels write a list of things that will help to revolutionize the modes of production. They mention that all of their suggestions might not work for everyone but, that for major industrial nations these steps should be utilized to effectively change the social structure. The list consists of these key concepts: the abolition of private property, progressive taxes, abolition of inheritance, centralization of credit and communication, and free education. The most important key to changing society is the centralization of the means of production in order to prevent any class from rising up and taking control of another. Marx and Engels conclude the chapter with an explanation of the process that the proletariat should use when overthrowing the bourgeois. They say that the proletariats need to be placed into power and become the ruling class after they must abolish all class, including their own. The last line reads, “…we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”(Manifesto, 491), meaning that decisions of the individual will now become the choices of the community as a whole.

Chapter 3: Socialist and Communist Literature-

The third part to Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto explains the earlier forms of socialism, prior to their development of communism. Below is the chapter broken down into the three different sects of socialism that Marx and Engels deem important for our understanding of communism.

I.	 Reactionary Socialism -

a. Feudal Socialism – According to Marx and Engels, Feudal Socialism was a system of ideas that arose as a result of the aristocracy acting against the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels criticize the Feudalists as being, “ludicrous in its effect through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history” (Marx, 35), as well as being flawed in the lacked realization that feudal practices resemble the initial formation of the “old order,” “In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society” (Marx, 33).

b. Petty Bourgeois Socialism - b. Petty Bourgeois Socialism – Analogous to Feudal Socialism, Petty Bourgeois Socialism is interpreted as destined to the formation of modern bourgeoisie. The idea bases the standards of the bourgeois from those of the “peasants and Petty” class and are thus more commonly found in areas where the “peasants and Petty” class make up the majority of the population – France was given as an example by Marx and Engel. Petty Bourgeois Socialism was viewed as being inconsistent and guilty of oscillating between proletariat and bourgeoisie. This form of socialism also provided proof of social follies that would become major themes of Marx and Engels' ideals, “the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labor; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crisis; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities” (Marx, 34). c. German or “True” Socialism – c.	When German intellectuals looked heavily into developing Communist based ideals from those set forth by French writers it was realized that the two regions maintained major differences in sociopolitical histories. Namely, French works were heavily laden in the fight against the bourgeoisie and feudalism, conflicts not to be found in German history. In response, German intellectuals developed their own socialist theme centered on the idea of “human nature” and reason. The German synthesis, “True” socialism provided many of the necessary requirements of socialism, and after defending against the bourgeois regaining control during ‘the liberal movement,’ became a true socialist state. The failure of Germany’s “True” Socialism was that it contained the properties of being ‘reactionary,’ where Germany became too focused on maintaining the traditional state of things thus refusing to remain competitive in global industrialization: “The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction-on the one hand. From the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat (Marx, 37).”

II. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism - “The socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom” (Marx, 38). This form of socialism concerns itself with thwarting the negative views of the bourgeois and removing the concentration away from revolution. The general notion is not to remove the Bourgeois but to have the proletariat removed instead. According to Marx and Engel This form neglects to understand the importance of revolution as a necessity as well as the importance to adhere to definitions of bourgeois, “the bourgeois are bourgeois-for the benefit of the working class” (Marx, 39). The movements founding principles exists for the benefit of and only for the uses of the proletariat.

III. Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism – This last section identifies several historical philosophers and ascetics who maintained some of the elemental themes of socialistic ideals. Mostly due to the immaturity of the proletariat not yet backed by a long history the ideas and many look at more peaceful modes of transformational policy, “new social gospel,” where Marx and Engel argue revolution is an essential element to restore power to the proletariat. These early thinkers as well fall victim to similar fates of ‘reactionary conservative Socialists,’ where socialistic ideas are based solely on hypothetical situations and in result are deemed strictly utopian in scope thus impractical in any true form. That is not to say that these ideas are without merit; many contain similar ‘class-struggle’-type of ideals, “such as the abolition of the family, of private gain, and of the wage system; the proclamation of social harmony; the conversion of the functions of the state into a mere superintendence of production” (Marx, 41).

Chapter 4: Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposing Parties -  “Workingmen of all countries, unite!” This concluding chapter focuses on the proper actions of communists. The main concern is to utilize existing groups that share similar ideals with Socialists and use them as catalysts: a mode to infiltrate all aspects of politics. Concentrate affiliations to groups interested in defending the working class against the exploitation by the bourgeoisie. This is exemplified by the French Social Democrats and the Switzerland Radicals. It is deemed mandatory that all adherers should profess the interests of socialism and be open and even evangelical with them. The final portion of this chapter focuses on the changing political landscape of Germany, and Marx and Engel announce their speculation of a major proletariat revolution in that region, “because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more developed proletariat than what existed in England in the 17th and in France in the 18th century” (Marx, 44).

c. Development of Socialism
Marx graduated from the University of Berlin, then obtained his doctorate in philosophy in 1841. His early career was in journalism as a reporter and an editor. It was in Paris while working for a publication where he became friends with Engel, who would serve as a philosophical and political partner for the next 40 years. It was through his work in journalism that Marx was able to notice the inner workings of socio-political corruption, and had to deal with major issues in censorship that would give him the motivation for his future works dealing with radical social changes. Among these, two of the publications he worked for were closed down by the police, many of his writings were censored or confiscated, and Marx spent a good deal of the latter part of his life in exile.

Karl Marx's ideas were derived from Hegel’s philosophies, namely this idea of alienation and historical competition, that society behaves much as an individual passing in and out of various forms of struggle in the act of development. Another key element adopted by Marx was Hegel’s idea of master-slave dialectic: the metaphor of slave and master is used to describe how from such sadomasochistic relationships we come to define ourselves, the master defines himself in terms of the slave’s view and the slave in terms of the master’s. Both are dependent upon the other in order to define power. Marx would come to interpret these ideas along with many of Hegel’s within the context of “the story of human labor and struggle” (Ball, 136), the central ideas of the Communist Manifesto. Marx added the idea to communism that the upper class tends to be the minority but holds complete power over all aspects of society (cultural, religious, political, etc.) and are “ideological superstructures,” able to justify their position accordingly.

Following the death of Hegel, Hegels' ideas were split into two groups: one that maintained the philosophies were to be strictly theological, and the other, to which Marx belonged, that would favor the philosophies to contain profound meaning through interpretation, beyond what even Hegel could have known. It would become the intellectual basis for his development of the Bourgeoisie/Proletariat, class-struggle model and later to become heavily routed in The Communist Manifest.

d. A Critique of Socialism
Critique of Socialist and Communist Literature Marx and Engel provide a description for current conditions and outline the historical purposes they have come to be. The setup of post-revolution society is very well defined and general political control is established. What is missing is how the transformation will take place; how a society can arrive from current realities to the future socialistic establishment. The mode is vague in a description where Marx “refused to write recipes for the kitchens of the future.”” (Ball, 147). Revolution is the means of obtaining socialism but the formation of the revolution as well as the exact actions of this revolution are left unclear. Another challenge is that Marx and Engel write, “In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past,” where as the Communist Manifesto is in itself deeply rooted in defining itself through historical terms.

"Looking at market competition as the force keeping the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie ‘fettered,’ “[the Proletariat] are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market” (Ball, 15). One of the main arguments upheld by capitalist’s challenges the idea that Marxism is indicative of reductions in market competition. This reduction in market competition greatly slows the rate of progression.

V. Socialism and it's relation to the 7 Ideals of enlightenment
A. Human autonomy is the means and end of Enlightenment According to Marx and Engel one of the aspirations of socialism is to actively disassociate from all social ties and dogmas to allow the individual to pursue his own interests and to educate himself by way of his own freewill, “But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience” (Marx, 29). The Socialist’s notion of freedom according to the text, “the agent who is to be free is not the abstract or isolated individual, but “individuals in relations.”

B. The importance of reason

Marx and Engel believed the sciences to be very important and ideas should be validated off of strong empirical information. This too can be seen in the construct of the Communist Manifesto which adheres strongly to a cause-and-effect model, “Marx suggests that for purposes of ‘scientific’ social analysis, we can simplify somewhat by imagining any society to contain two antagonistic classes” (Ball, 137).

C.Enlightenment is universal

Individuality is mentioned time and time again in Marx’s works and it is evident that Marx believes the major distraction of reason is derived from a capitalistic drive. It is capital that enslaves both the bourgeois as well as proletariat from pursuing interests in knowledge. Both groups are born with the same potential for intelligence; all present differences are solely the result of social situation. Focuses on ‘Enlightenment’ ideas would be made possible if the distraction of capital could be overcome.

D. A belief in progress

Revolution is the idea of abrupt fast past transformation. Generally Socialists hold the notion that society is not static and that it is continually progressing.

E. Secularism: separating church and politics Socialism looks at separating church from not only politics but in all aspects of society where it is seen as a means of control and a distraction from reality as well as being definitively bourgeoisie. The stance of religion by socialists can be exemplified by the famous Marx quote, “religion is the opiate of the people.”

F. Concern with economics

Economics are adherently controlled by a central government where all people receive an equal share of profits in accordance with section 5 of the Manifesto, “Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and exclusive monopoly” (Marx, 30).

G.The ideal of popular government

Communism as stated by Marx and Engel is democratic to the highest degree, where political power as it exists for one class over another, “...is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another” (Marx, 31), is disintegrated, and policy is wielded strictly by the terms of the people as it relates directly to the people.

title: Northern Arizona University/Socialism