Blog Discussion Group Three
Please answer one question from the following list. Blog "post" due at 11:55pm on October 8 and "comment" due at 11:55pm on October 11.
Political Ideology
1. In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
2. Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
4. How were Marx’s ideas developed by succeeding generations?
5. What are the different approaches used by democratic socialism and communism to pursue for equality?
Political Ideology
1. In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
2. Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
4. How were Marx’s ideas developed by succeeding generations?
5. What are the different approaches used by democratic socialism and communism to pursue for equality?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
ReplyDeleteIn a Utopian society it’s basically a paradise and highly desired by all of the citizens therein. According to our text Essentials of Comparative Politics by Patrick H. O’Neil states that there is a 4 part process / phases in order to “Triumph” toward the revolution of Communism:
1. Feudalism
A. The phase of emerging technology empowered an early capitalist
2. Capitalist Democracy
A. Economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and individuals are responsible for their own lives
3. Dictatorship of the Proletariat
A. State of affairs in which the working class hold political power
4. Communist Utopia
A. State of government where specified property or means of production are owned by the state and not citizens or persons, and which may also provide for a form of equal distribution of national production
The term Utopia was coined back in 1516 and Marx’s theory of reaching Communist Utopia came to be in the 1800’s. So far there hasn’t been a perfect world made by Regimes.
Marx believed in the community and workers holding power over the means of production. Any state, in Marx's view, would contribute to the reintegration of class back into society. Therefore, we cannot define any regimes as being Marxist. All relied on state capitalist production systems. In addition, Marxism does not guarantee a perfect world but merely an end to capitalist exploitation that will help the proletariat to create a better world.
DeleteThere were 3 thinkers in this time that were trying to change social structure. But it was Marx that came out in 1842 writing in a newspaper early on where his radical democratic articles angered authorities. Later that newspaper was shut down. And editors were prosecuted. I'm trying to see if someone who is trying to create a better world why is there so many issues with his view?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1.Yes, all religions are in a broad way, political. This comes from the definition given by Haugue and Harrop back in Chapter 1 of “Political Science: A Comparative Introduction.” Haugue and Harrop define politics as being the playing field for power, and issues of how power is used and distributed. Religion fits nicely into this picture. Obviously religion has been used in overtly political ways. All religions have used religious doctrine to justify violence as a means of achieving political goals at some point in history. Many political parties also form to advocate the political interests of different faiths. In addition, religions can shape individuals politics. In the United States, Christianity has been invoked by both Democrats and Republicans to justify policy positions such as abortion rights and wealth distribution. Religion is deeper than just these outwardly political things. Religion and culture affect how people understand hierarchy, power, and their own political character. It can even be used to stop people from overthrowing their current conditions. For this reason, Marx termed religion as “the opiate of the masses.” This is a good indicator that religion is very political in character.
ReplyDelete2. It is impossible to keep religion and politics totally separate. As mentioned before, religion has an inherent political aspect either consciously or subconsciously. That being said states should do their very best to maintain strict separation. Any state that does not do this is giving preferential treatment to a certain religious ideology and this interferes with the right for people to be equal under the law.
3. According to Karl Mannheim, cited in the Heywood reading, “Utopias on the other hand are idealized representations of the future that imply the need for radical social change, invariably serving the interest of oppressed or subordinate groups.” This does not mean ‘unrealistic’ or ‘overly optimistic’ as is often assumed, but merely imagining and idealizing strategies for liberating oppressed people. Marxism is utopian because it uses dialectical materialism to create a vision of the future of class society. Much like Hegel, Marx predicted that history was progressing towards an end, for Marx this end of history was communism.
4-5. Marx’s ideas were developed in several ways by subsequent thinkers. Lenin, Castro and Mao attempted to apply Marxism into a specific political revolutionary strategy for China, Cuba and Russia. They believed a vanguard party was necessary to establish a “workers state” which would seize the means of production and create a centralized planned economy. Under this system they would enact a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ which would eventually end class society.
Democratic socialism developed in opposition to this. Democratic socialist embrace Marx’s critique of capitalism but seek slow reform based change within existing political structures, and embrace electoral strategies to achieve equality.
Although not in the readings for this week, it is important to add that libertarian communism also was born out of Marxism. Philosophers like Peter Kropotkin seeked to change society through revolution but not through establishing a state. Instead, they advocated for society to be run through interconnected smaller communities and workers councils. They believed this would correct for the hierarchy and oppression from the state socialist systems and lead to actual communism.
2. I believe that there should be a strict separation between religion and politics, however, I am not sure to what extent this would be possible because religion is already so deeply ingrained in politics throughout the world. Religion in itself is a tool of politics, meaning it is used by politicians to defend or make stances, it is used in justification for laws etc. making it so that religion is involved in politics as a whole. Even in states that were founded on the principle of the separation of church and state, these states were also founded on the basis of religion. Whether the foundation of religion is beneath the surface or it is evident, many decisions states made historically were motivated by religion. There are still some states today where religion is the motivating factor for things such as how the government is run, what beliefs a state holds, wars and many more things. I think that when religion is a central part of politics it leads to things such as showing a preference to one religion over another, and creating a sort of hierarchy of religions, making faiths other than the dominant inferior. I think that there should be a separation of religion and politics, both when religion is inherently involved in the political sphere and when it is obviously involved.
ReplyDeleteYes, religions are political ideologies to some extent-some more than others. According to the reading from Comparative Politics political ideologies are the basic values of fundamental goals of politics as it relates to freedom and equality. They are built over time and the attitudes are articulated in response to the institutional conditions around us. Also, according to the reading religion was very central to public affairs, including policies, the rise of political identities such as citizenship, nationalism in the postmodern world. Ideology led to the privatization of religion. When political identities became very popular it gave assertion to the fundamental nature humans and society and about the keys to a good life and an ideal community as well as core texts, prophets, and a promise of salvation just like religion.
ReplyDeleteKeely
2. Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteReligion and politics will never be strictly separate. Going back in time to when the United States was founded the pledge of allegiance was made to say one nation under God. At the time traditional values were aligned with Christian values and as time has progressed we have seen the distance made between religion and state. Even now when someone goes to court they put their hands on the bible. Looking at one of the biggest issues in the U.S. right now of abortion rights some say it is within their legal right to abort. Other say that murder is a sin and should not be allowed. This is only one example of where religion and state collide.
Hi Mirian!
DeleteI agree with your statement strongly! In my opinion, there could not be a state to where religion and politics are separate. There has to be a basis on what politics are based upon and that would be religion. As provided in your example with abortion, this ties into my argument about the death penalty. Both of these laws are committing "murder", but does that make it moral for the government to be able to do so? You have a valid point on the statement of abortion and had me intrigued to read more. Does this make it right for one to kill another legally? From an unborn baby to an innocent man? We leave this in society's hands to make that decision.
2. Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe that religion and politics should be kept strictly separate but under a government that has religion based holidays this may be impossible.The United States is a great example. Some may say that religion was created by our founding fathers to create moral value for which individual and state. It would be impossible to separate religion and politics. Without religion the government wouldn't be as powerful.
3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
ReplyDeleteThe Marxist theory is called a utopia because it's ideology is rooted in Socialism. Meaning that, we would rely very heavily on the notion that human beings intentions and wills are altogether good. Many think that this puts more faith in humanity that it may deserve. The utopian aspect of his theory would redistribute wealth and there would no longer be a class system. "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." In our textbook it tells us that an ideology is a system of collectively held beliefs and attitudes advocating a particular pattern of social arrangements, which its proponents seek to promote and maintain. The Marxist theory depends on every human being wholly altruistic within their society. It would be utopian to believe that greed, malice, or mistrust wouldn't permeate the altruism to find some sort of personal gain with the system.
I heavily disagree with this. First, utopia is not defined as a perfect world but rather idealized ideas of the future that imply the need for radical change. Socialism does not require an optimistic view of humans, but it does point to the fact that capitalism brings out the worst in human nature. Marx wrote that human behavior is dictated by the material conditions of society and production and this is a consistently observable fact. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. It can be done on a small or large scale, with or without a state. It is not solely a way of 'redistributing' wealth as you seem to say. People would be better because of socialism, but socialism does not need everybody in a society to be altruistic. In contrast, capitalism cannot exist without class and poverty and without fostering greed, malice and mistrust.
Delete2. Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteI believe that religion and politics are impossible to be kept separate since political views are based on religion. Before politics and politicians came about, the people's views were based upon their respective religion. In this case, politics are a derivative of religion. "If religion had helped describe the world and prescribe the people's behavior in relation freedom, equality, and power then political identities were nonspiritual guides to those same ends."(O'Neil, 86). A great example of how politics and religion are inseparable is the idea of the death penalty. Many religious people believe that only God has the ability to take away a life; other believe that they brought it upon themselves to be punished by the people. Even if one tries to separate these two perspectives, it cannot be accomplished due to the fact that both correlate to one another.
Thank you for your response Ellis. At first glance, I would have completely disagreed with you on the answer "religion and politics are impossible to be kept separate" but I realized that there is some truth to what you have said. When I think about how we live as human beings, I realize that it is difficult to fully separate religion and politics since most of our decisions tend to be influenced by our own faith and values. I wonder if there is actually a state that has a system that strictly separates religion from politics and what that looks like in reality.
Delete1. In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
ReplyDeleteThis is a tricky question because it there are a lot of governments that are based around religion which could cause people to assume that all religions are political ideologies. I would argue that all religions are political ideologies, strictly because most religions end up gathering a following that is used to create a society. In the United States, we have the freedom of religion, but there is clearly some religious background that is prevalent since our country has existed. For example, in our national anthem and on our currency, there are remarks to a God, which would infer that our country was built around some religion. This is also true with Great Britain and plenty of European countries, where the people of the country practice the same religion.
Jack,
DeleteThe concept of separation of church and state and thereby religion and the state is a relatively new concept in the history of governments. I agree with you about religion being political. It is for those reasons you listed and more. Religion, is an concept that informs its followers about their ways of life and sometimes creation as well. How could something that powerful not penetrate into every aspect of our lives? Religions are a specific form of community. And we need to belong to a community of some sort in order to survive. Therefore because of the community aspect as well as the importance of religion over millennia, it is safe to say religion is political.
3. Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
ReplyDeleteIn theory Karl Marx's idea of communism is utopia because it is only beneficial to all people in its theoretical form. In the physical form it has limitations that cannot be reconciled to work or else the USSR would still be around. These limitations include:
Total commitment to Equality, Unity, Solidarity, and Security
The government structure used by Vanguard party
The total commitment limitation, is one that exists because it is itself an ideal, that can only be worked towards, but not reasonably achieved in one person's lifetime. One can use violence to get rid of the rich and educated and help the working man, but if when all people suffer in the pursuit of something greater that can not be realized in one's lifetime, then the passing on of that system of governance in which all people suffer, will not be possible as attitudes of resistance will arise again.
According to the Mises Institute, it is the execution of this plan of Marx, that makes his system a Utopia. In his plan to create absolute equality, one strips the world of its diversity and creativity and free will. The totalitarian violence he wanted to use, was seen as vital to creating "timeless permanence" that is itself something that can never be achieved as it is contrary to the human condition that experiences life and death.
https://mises.org/library/marx-utopian
The Vanguard party system is flawed as well because power is centralized to the extreme. Power corrupts, and if power is concentrated, even if when an individual has the best intentions and purist heart when receiving power, they will be corrupted to that power with time, leading to a new manifestation of the old upper class.
I really really disagree with you on this for many reasons.
Delete1. Utopia is an incited ideological framework for radical change- not perfection.
2. Marx defined communism as a "stateless, classless, moneyless society.' Obviously this kind of society has never existed. Socialism is defined as a system where the workers own the means of production. You mention the USSR which was not socialist. Lenin believed in the core principles of Marxism but believed that a vanguard would lead to a gradual transition and argued with detractors such as Trotsky and Gramsci. The state owned the means of production- not the workers. In addition the state produced commodities to sell on capitalist markets. For this reason I think the USSR is better defined as state capitalism. Also the USSR collapsed because Gorbachev thought that lifting the iron curtain and implementing a globalist free market system would be the only way for the USSR to survive.
3. The use of a vanguard party is a tactic for Leninists and Maoists - not for Marxists in general
4. Capitalism only works for the interest of a tiny group of people and causes the rest of the world to suffer. Socialism can be achieved in our lifetimes and I believe is the only way to avoid climate apocalypse.
5. Libertarian communism is a distinct school of Marxist thought and does not believe in the power of the state. Capitalism is the force that strips the world of diversity, creativity, and free will by limiting the creative capacity of every person and reducing them to their value under capitalism. Libertarian communist thinkers agree that power must also be distributed evenly among a population, through workers councils and mutual aid organizations.
However, I do agree that the Vanguard party system is flawed because it recreates class division. I just also wanted to point out that most communists disagree with vanguard-ism and that there are more ways to enact marxist theory.
Also I wanted to point out that Mises institute is a right-wing think tank that is definitely not a credible source for this type of thing.
DeleteI really appreciate your comment Cade. I certainly should have investigated my source that I can honestly say I picked hastily in creating a response. I should study more about this topic again to make sure I understand it as well as you do.
DeleteMy understanding of Utopia came from Merriam-Webster.
"a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions." The perception this definition gives is that of "ideal perfection." But perhaps the definition as Marx intended was similar to your line of thought, I don't know.
The USSR was a poor choice to exemplify Marx ideals, since as I understand your comment, it did not manifest itself in the way that Marxist ideology sees the world. However, we were in agreement since the world has never seen the society that is "stateless, class-less, money-less society."
The vanguard system is something I should research more closely. I should not have so loosely assigned its existence to Marxist thought without appreciating the differences between it and as Leninist and Maoist.
My post seems to have referred to or given the impression that I am in support of capitalism? I did not realize this if I did so, and I would appreciate it if someone could point it out to me. I simply participate in capitalism just as everyone does as it is our dominant system. Capitalism has only seen the benefit of the few. This is true. . . I'm not arguing with that fact.
Now I will certainly admit to knowing nothing of Libertarian communism. Again, if I brought that up in my comment, please let me know how so I can learn from my ignorance.
I'd be interested to hear your ideas on how socialism can help with the climate crisis. I personally agree with you but again it would be nice to hear your ideas of how we as a society can make that a reality.
I am not entirely sure what "this type of thing," is in reference to . . . but again I appreciate your comment and I will certainly do more research to understand your comment.