Anti-Semitism

Anti Semitism

What is anti Semitism?
Anti Semitism can be described as being hostile towards Jewish people, simply because they are Jewish. It can be seen through religious teachings, political views, jokes, comments and/or actions. Essentially, it is racism against the Jews.
When most people think of Anti-Semitism, they think of the Holocaust and Adolf Hitler. Most of what we have seen in history about Anti-Semitism came from the thoughts and ideas of Hitler, though throughout time there have been other cases of discrimination against others simply based on their beliefs or looks (e.i. slavery in the United States, Darfur, ect.)

Who is Anti Semetic?
People who discriminate against others who practice the Jewish faith.
Jews were criticized for many things; their looks, their jobs, their success, how they smelled, their customs.
Some famous anti Semites are Adolf Hitler, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Shakespeare, Voltaire, and even Walt Disney.
Someone’s thought is that everyone is an anti-Semite; this person’s belief is that anti-Semitism is when someone disagrees with a Jew—no one can agree with a Jew 100% of the time, therefore we are all anti Semitic.

How does Anti Semitism relate to Fascism?
Fascism can be described in one statement: anti-liberalism. Anti-Semitism was clearly an extreme version of racialism, and there was a strong sense of victimization through violence, all of which also relate to fascism. In fascism, one of the principles is that there is a distinct difference between friend and foe, and that the enemy must be exterminated; something that Hitler wanted to make sure of happened to the Jews.

Carrie

Prof to Stud: First round - well done!

Thank you for your little essays. I enjoyed reading and commenting them.
(One is still missing ... Anti-Semitism. I myself still have to add: Libertarianism. )

Now, this was the first round. I'd appreciate if you read not only my comment to your own essay, but also all the other essays and comments. And try to establish a sound bite version for each of the conceptions or ideologies for your everyday use.

It would be interesting to read your own comments and questions to my comments as well as to the essays of the other students.

We will continue this debate in the first week after Fall Break.
We will do it this way: I will interview each of you for about 5-10 minutes about "your" conception. So you will not read your essay to the students, but answer to my questions ... Make sure that you get a vivid and robust idea of "your" conception - I will try to challenge you and make you sweat a little!

See you on Thursday and Friday!

Leo

Conservatism

Adam Dzierwa
Professor Leo
20/10/09

A Comparison of Fascism and Conservatism

After examining a few very descriptive resources that explain what conservatism implies and what conservative politicians tend to believe and support, I have come to the conclusion that conservatism is not a form of fascism. And this is even despite that fact that conservatism and its principles can have varied and different meanings and ideas within different societal and cultural contexts. Also thanks to the information that I now have on fascism, it is clear to me that fascism revolves around one central element, violence. It builds its principles upon racialism, victimization, forcible oppression, idealism, dictatorship, populism, and a strong state. Conservatism, however, not even in its most extreme form, has none of these particular elements. I will clarify what I mean below.

Firstly, there are different schools of conservatism that are either more to the left or to the right on the conservative half of the political spectrum. There is rational conservatism, skeptical conservatism, and pluralistic conservatism. The first group believes that there is a moral order in reality, that political arrangements that are in support of this order foster good lives, and that any that conflict with it are only bound to make a society worse. It tends to take a lot from historical record and experience and uses such knowledge to keep everything that was historically good for a society functioning in the present alongside new ideas that also work. Skeptical conservatism revolves around reliance on faith and the rejection of reason. This form of conservatism is most predominant in the US. In other words, all reasoning for this circle is based on assumptions that can only be supported with faith; and questioning historical arrangements via new metaphysical viewpoints is seen as unreliable. As for pluralistic conservatism, this body supports the idea of a moral order in reality, but denies that reliable knowledge of it can be obtained unlike the rational conservatives. Pluralistic conservatives will try to filter out the bad elements in society, but would stress that the central order on which society operates simply could not be dissected even with rational examination. Hence there is more chance placed on their operations than with rational conservatives.

To distinguish and conclude most precisely on this subject, conservatives do believe, somewhat like fascists, that there is a stream of values and institutions that must be distinguished and defended from being overrun by any others and will also tend to privilege the collective over the individual, at least on a local communal level. However, from this point onward the conservative shifts gears in an almost completely different direction from the fascist. For amongst the core attributes of fascism are support of a strong state government with a virtual monopoly over influence in people’s lives, the use of mass mobilization of the masses to achieve ends, a strong idealist movement, and the need for internal cleansing and external expansion. Any conservative, no matter how radical, would never want to adopt any of these principles for governing a society. The conservative tends to favour limited government, along with a very realist view of life and society. He believes in the freedom of forming vital voluntary associations and shun any policy that inhibits the protection of private property or forces an individual into a system against his/her own will. It is all based around the idea of equilibrium, not charging up and then unleashing potential energy in order to change society by radical or revolutionary means. As for fascism, not only is it more or less irrational in a number of extremes given its violent nature, but it is in itself no less a violent plan of action than a political philosophy. Its entire scope includes obtaining the power of the masses in order to support a more or less authoritarian form of government. Conservatives stress a move towards rather more authoritative forms of government instead of authoritarian forms. Lastly, conservatives will always examine political plans for any possibility of unintended consequences in the future. The fascist will not do this, for to accomplish revenge and expansion, it is believed that you should try going beyond your limit without considering the consequences. Conservatism is orderly and fascism is radical; the former rational, the latter irrational. That is far and away the simplest way to put it all together.

Social Democrats' Socialism

Social Democrats’ Socialism- democratic welfare state with elements of socialism and communism; mix of private and public enterprises make up the economy, modified capitalism, strong government-funded social programs, regulation of private industry by the government

Social Democrats work to create “a classless cooperative commonwealth in every nation.” The underlying idea is the abolition of the capitalist system, including private property. These two systems within an economy create a hierarchy of power and wealth. This power and wealth are used to oppress those lower in the society. Social Democrats take a realistic stance to solve these social and economic problems.

One main idea that helped me to better understand SDS is that Social Democrats are in favor of having a market economy not a market society. The idea is to have an economy based on an efficient production and fair trade, versus the common society that is based on free trade, inefficient production and power that is obtained through the exploitation of the workers. Thus, to have a market that is based on the market, not the society in which it runs. A market society has a triangle hierarchy, that, when toppled, tend to hurt those nearer to the bottom most.

One of the many positive aspects of SDS is the regulation of private enterprises by the government. The government regulates in the interests of the workers, an idea similar to that of Fascism. With the governments help, SDS works to create a market economy, not a market society. A market economy, in contrast to a market society, can “succeed in lifting the majority in developing democracies” to a higher standard of living. This idea is also common is Fascism-the collective good/success over that of the individual, the creation of a strong collective group through work. (The ethos of a collective group, in Fascism, is much different than that of Social Democrats)

SDS takes ideas from the international declaration of human rights-ideas and political action with emphasis on healthcare and welfare, affordable education for all under the belief that these are not gifts to be awarded to those who deserve them, but that they are basic human rights. They work for greater environmental protection. The government body regulates private business as well as working towards fair market competition, rather than free market competition. Many of the social programs that are common with Social Democrats also occur under Fascism. Unlike SDS, under Fascism many or all human rights are given up/taken away in order for the dictatorial power to have complete control.

In contrast to SDS, Fascism focuses much of its energy on war, violence and the creation of a single community, one without immigrants or people of other ethnic origins. Another stark contrast within Fascism is the complete absence of democracy, which is replaced by a dictator and strong oppression of dissent. SDS gives more power to the government, including the state level, which should give the citizens a greater voice into politics and government. (in theory) Though SDS is different than Fascism, the Socialist government regulation of private and public industry does give the government the ability to maintain control over the working population, as well as the economy. It does not, however, have the same over-arching repression of Fascism.

While the ideas of SDS are (slightly) radical is some areas, there are counties who function under SDS, as well as government parties who take part of this political ideology and integrate it into their own. (Germany, Austria- applied to economy)

Emma

Liberalism (FDR/New Deal)

Dima Hanania
Political Science 250
Leo Brux
October 20, 2009

Liberalism is the belief in the emphasis of individual freedom. Surfacing in the 18^th century, during the Age of Enlightenment, modern liberalism refuses many foundational assumptions that dominated earlier themes of government. This includes the Divine Right of Kings – meaning that kings claimed their authority was given to them by God and was therefore considered, unquestionable – hereditary status within monarchies and established religion. John Locke is often credited with the philosophical foundations of modern liberalism, claiming: “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Liberalism strives for individual emancipation, separation of church and state, equal rights, and the providing, by the government, of social services such as health care, education and social security.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the thirty second president of the United States and only president to have been elected for four terms, organized the New Deal in 1933 to bring America out of the Great Depression. The New Deal aimed to fulfill what came to be known as “the three Rs” – relief to the unemployed through economic programs designed to bring about jobs, the reform of financial and business practices, which lead into the recovery of the economy. The speedy expansion and encouragement of these government social programs during Roosevelt’s presidency redefined the role of the government in the United States, and was influential in redefining liberalism by restoring confidence and opportunity in the American people.

While liberalism endeavors to instill individual freedom, fascism strives to centralize power and authority under a dictator through inflexible socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror, aggressive nationalism and racism. Fascist dictators tire endlessly against delegation of authority to other people or entities, while liberals emphasize individual self-determination and equality. The progress of liberalism and industry has affected the distribution of wealth, at least in part, from the traditional nobility to private hands, thus creating new private interest groups with the ability to operate as political entrepreneurs. This distribution of power among private entities, in itself, offers a very significant difference to the principle of fascism.

Communism vs. Fascism

Communism Versus Fascism

When one thinks of Communism, the first thing that comes to mind is the regime of the USSR or modern China. However, that is only one form of Communism. The philosophy can be divided into many denominations, but the most prevalent are Marxism, Leninism-Marxism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism.

The original, purest form is known as Marxism, put forth by Karl Marx and Friederich Engels in The Communist Manifesto (1848). The three main principles in Marxism are the interpretation of history as a war between the classes, critique of capitalism, and the advocacy of a proletariate revolution. In response to the manifesto, Belgium expelled both men and forced them to settle in Cologne. When they established a radical newspaper in Cologne, the Prussian government also vilified them, leading them to settle in London. Prussia pressured London to extradite them, but the English government refused.

Marxism-Leninism is the ideology that effectively shaped the Soviet Union. It concentrated on rapid industrialization and government control over public life in order to affect collectivization. Two of the main principles were development of a socialist state, and democratic centralism as an organizational principle. Lenin ruled the USSR until his retirement in 1922, when Stalin and Trotsky fought for the control of the party. Stalin eventually gained control and continued using the political philosophy of Marxism-Leninism, making Stalinism more of a governing style than a philosophy. Stalin expedited the move towards socialism with the Five-Year Plans, laid the groundwork for the Soviet policy towards nationalities, his thesis Socialism in One Country, which stated that Russia should focus on strengthening the state as a reaction to the failure of communist revolutions in other countries, and the theory of “aggravation of class struggle along with the development of socialism,” which justified oppression of political opponents. Leon Trotsky, on the other hand, believed that the Socialism in One Country theory defied proletarian internationalism, and claimed that he was the true advocate of the “dictatorship of the proletariate.” Both Stalin and Trotsky deny that the other ideology truly follows in Lenin and Marx’s footsteps. After Stalin gained control of the USSR, Trotsky was expelled from the state. His ideas were never fully embraced by the communist community. Maoism is the version of communism practiced by Mao Zedong and the People’s Republic of China. The basic tenets of Maoism include revolutionary struggle of the vast majority of people against the exploiting classes and their state structures, termed a People’s War; it also focuses on the countryside instead of cities and industrial centers, a practice know as Agrarian socialism. Maoism asserts that there is class struggle even after the triumph of the worker over the bourgeoisie, and that there are capitalist sympathetic elements even within the party. The PRC split with the USSR during the reign of Khrushchev, due to the USSR’s continuing policy of state capitalism. After Lenin, the USSR continued to assimilate all businesses into the state, and extending their control into people’s home lives. True Marxist Communists separate themselves from the USSR, saying that the government had broken from Communism by not giving the control back to the people once it was all collected under government control.

Communists and fascists of Hitler’s era were sworn enemies. Marxists/Bolsheviks are anti-democratic, like fascism, but instead of having one absolute ruler, they desire the masses to rule. Fascism is violently opposed to this, as the masses are tainted and uneducated, so cannot adequately rule at the desired level for a perfect society. To fascists, people need to be told what to do. This has more in common with Stalinism and Maoism, which both stopped progression towards true Communism when the government had acquired full control over the public sector. Communism practiced in the USSR and China stresses conformity and oppresses opposing political parties, much like in Germany under the Third Reich. However, Hitler associated Marxism and Bolshevism with the Jews, and carried out a crusade on the German Communist Party. While similarities can be found within the two philosophies, they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Authoritarianism

Laura Pates

20.10.09

Authoritarianism

There are many definitions of Authoritarianism, all revolving around the idea of individual power and unquestioning obedience. As Webster states, “[it is] favorable to blind submission to authority.” It is a form of government that is typically controlled by unelected officials, though it may not always be apparent to the public that such deceit is at hand.

As written by Theodore M. Vestal, Authoritarianism can be described by the following principles (among many others):

1) Rule of men, not rule of law.

2) Rigged elections.

3) All important political decisions made by unelected officials behind closed doors.

4) A bureaucracy operated independently of rules, the supervision of elected officials, or concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve;

5) The informal and unregulated exercise of political power.

One major downfall to an Authoritarian government is that it often leads to the weakening of civil society. Politically, there is no room for competition or free range of groups/organizations. In many cases, the authority figure imposes control on virtually every aspect of society. Also, the habit of responding to challenges through tighter control as opposed to adaptation is a significant source of weakness. This government also tends to submerge individual rights and goals, to group goals and conformities. Authoritarian governments are also generally prone to corruption. Criticism or accusations of such corruption are either useless as the authorities will retain their positions, or dangerous because those officials may retaliate for such ‘disobedience’. A modern example of such behavior is the Peoples Republic of China. Dictatorships and monarchies are often related to Authoritarian governments, but the particular similarities can vary greatly with each case.

In respect to Fascism, Authoritarianism actually differs in many ways. A fascist government tends to use violence and forcible oppression towards any opposing forces or dissidence. Though this can be the case with authoritarian governments, it is quite often not a practiced method. Fascism is also said to be very anti-democratic, and Authoritarianism is often compared to an illiberal democratic form of government. Most would not say it is equivalent to a democratic society, though one must acknowledge the existing parallels. Some seemingly positive aspects that Fascism encompasses which Authoritarianism does not are the emphasis on good humanity and society and the need of a charismatic leader. An Authoritarian leader often holds no concern to how society views them, or have a concern for the state of happiness of their communities. Power and control are of the utmost importance.

Neo-conservatism

Adam Clark

Political Science 250

Leo Brux

20.10.2009

Neo-conservatism

From an etymological standpoint, “neo-conservatism” means “newly conservative.” Many neo-conservatives were liberal or moderate in their youth, and later moved to the neo-conservative standpoint. My 10th grade Civics teacher once told me that the older a person gets, the more conservative they typically become. Of course, this is not always true. Also, the film die fetten Jahre sind vorbei contains a quote dealing with the turning toward conservatism: “Unter dreizig und nicht liberal, kein Herz. Ueber dreizig und noch liberal, keine Gehirne.”

The defining characteristic of a neo-conservative is the willingness to install democracy in other nations; similar to the United States’ installation of democracy in Iraq. Many neo-conservatives believe that democracy should be spread worldwide. Many neo-conservatives disagreed with George W. Bush on many grounds; however, they applauded his decision to engage the Iraq War and his efforts to bring democracy to this nation.

Though both political philosophies contain the word “conservative,” there are many notable differences between neo-conservatives and conservatives. While most conservatives support prayer in the classroom and oppose abortion, many neo-conservatives are on the opposite grounds. If nothing else, a neo-conservative is unlikely to actively oppose abortion. Neo-conservatives tend to take libertarian views on social issues.

Of course, neo-conservatives and conservatives do share some common ground. Both are supporters of the dreaded PATRIOT Act of 2001. Many neo-conservatives describe themselves as “conservative.”

While nowhere near fascism, neo-conservatism does contain some elements thereof. As supporters of the PATRIOT Act, neo-conservatives believe that the illegal tapping of phones and other invasions of privacy are fine, given the right circumstances. They want to protect their country, and are willing to go to what I would call extreme circumstances to do so. Also, neo-conservatives do hold a slight belief that the enemy must be exterminated. In their case, I think the enemies are non-democratic nations. The neo-conservatives wish to expand democracy to every nation possible.

Finally, neo-conservatives are described by many as “liberals mugged by reality.” Many neo-conservatives were formally liberal, and eventually changed their beliefs. To conservatives and neo-conservatives, the liberals are wrong and misguided people. They need to get their facts straight and start thinking like Americans, not communists or fascists or socialists or anything else that is a threat to the American way of life.

Islamism/Fundamentalism

Ben

20-10-09

In understanding Islamism as an ideology, as well as the associated Islamic Fundamentalism, it is necessary to understand the basic ideologies set forth by the Qur'an and the religion of Islam itself. The basic premise is that Islam is not only a religion, but also a means of governance. It is the belief that all followers should unite under Islam's social and political rule.

The core of Islamism is that of the Sharia, or Islamic Law. The laws themselves are somewhat irrelevant, but what they represent are quite important. A common misconception is that Sharia is directly quoted from the Qur'an. However, it is a separately formed entity that was endorsed by the Qur'an as the "will of God". In this sense, followers of the Qur'an would certainly be obliged to follow this particular set of ideals. The regulations set forth by Sharia only apply to the Muslim world and society. Thus, when one travels outside of the Muslim society, they are no longer bound totally to their practice. Sharia strives to control all aspects of life including religious practice, political ideology, as well as social expectancies. This even goes so far as peoples' personal, private lives. However, one must not also associate these tenets with negative oppression. Many of the laws under Sharia strive for fairness in areas that had often been undercut in non-Muslim society. In addition to the acceptance of the Sharia, it is a common belief within Islamism that other cultural influences are incompatible. As a result, it is a often a senitiment that these other cultural fallacies must be eliminated for total peace to occur.

The root of Islamic Fundamentalism is that of the second point mentioned. The belief that the way of Islam is the most righteous and all other cultural impurities must be eliminated. The major difference in the ideologies of Islamism and Islamic Fundamentalism is simply that in Islamism, it is believed that people of Muslim faith are heralds of change for a better practice of Islam, and the Fundamentalists are "guardians" of the traditions set forth by the Qur'an and Sharia. This, while not always, is often accompnaied with vehement enforcement of Islam's ideals. When these tenets are also infringed upon by an outside culture, it is also expected to strike back in vengence. Otherwise, the term "fundamentalism" simply indicates that those following the Qur'an should live life using a direct intrepretaion of it.

The final, more controversial term steming from both of the afterforementioned ideologies is that of "Islamofacism". This is not an accepted, or truly practiced form of Islamism or Facism, but rather a label. Many violent Islamic movements and totalitarian states that practice Islam are labeled as such because they resemble history's Western Facist institutions. Thus, it does not mean that these Islamic movements are facist at all. It is a term well liked by the Western media because it demonizes "the Enemy". Facism and true Islamism share a few tenets, and so they are overall incompatible. However, the idea of corrolation is not so terribly misguided. It is understandable that an enemy of group with Sharia in practice might believe they were veiwing a facist state. Much of Sharia dictates ideals of nearly all aspects of life, but it is not strong-arm control. While often severely punishable, the laws of Sharia are still a moral choice. This in itself marks a very imprtant difference to the ideal of facism.

Totalitarianism

Julian Nipper

October/20/ 2009

Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism was first categorized by Giovanni Amendola in the 1923, using this term to describe a governmental party that ruled with absolute limitless power reaching usually controlled by a single person or party. Very similar to the fascist government one party in the nation is important to the movement. Originally it was used as a term to describe how Italian fascism was different from most forms of fascism that one person or party had “total” control hence Totalitarianism. However when Giovanni Amendola described the fascism he stated that it was a positive tool that could direct the goals of the state.

The Totalitarianism governments use any means necessary to remain in power such as eliminating other political parties so that the Totalitarian government is all that remains, using such methods as mass propaganda, mass media portraying the Totalitarian government in a positive light. As well as more negative forms of governmental such as surveillance systems and state terrorism used to keep the people loyal and form disobeying the government.

Totalitarianism overall goal is to have complete control over all of the individuals in its community, control over the work life as well as the personal life. The Totalitarian government goal is to be the only ruling power in the state meaning that states have no way of passing laws that would only affect that state. The Nation would have to pass a law in order for the new law 2 come into effect.

Modern governments that represent this style of government include North Korea government in how it controls every aspect of an individual’s rights. One Popular book that portrayed Totalitarianism is George Orwell’s 1984 in which every person is monitored by its government as well the individuals were loyal to the government so that the Totalitarist government could stay in power.

Zionism, Christian Zionism

Politically Zionism is the international political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of the homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. Biblically understood Zionism is the return of the Jewish people to Zion, land of Israel; the land promised by God to Abraham and his descendants. Zionism is one of the several Jewish political movements proposing alternative responses to adaption and the position of the Jews in Europe. Zionism grew quickly and after the Holocaust became the dominant power among Jewish political movements. Israel was established in 1948 as the “homeland for the Jewish people”. The multi-national, worldwide Zionist movement is structured as a representative democracy. Congresses are held every four years and delegates to the congress are elected by the membership. There are five aims of a Zionist today: unity of the Jewish people and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life, ingathering of the Jewish people in its historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through Aliyah from all countries, strengthening of the state of Israel which is based on the prophetic vision of justice and peace, preservation of the Jewish identity through the fostering of Jewish and Hebrew education and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values, and protection of Jewish rights everywhere. The idea of Zionism is organized on the basis of long and continuous association between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. The core of the Zionist ideology is reflected in the principle that the land of Israel is the historical origin of the Jewish people, and in believing that the presence of Jews in any other part of the world is living in exile. Zionism is dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism in all its forms.
Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical Prophecy. Christian Zionism is also a movement resulting from the Bible, mainly among Gentile Christians, who share this interpretation and this vision of God being faithful to all His covenants. Some Christian Zionists believe that the “ingathering” of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. Many Christian Zionists believe that the people of Israel remain part of the chosen people of God. The role of certain Christians in supporting the establishment of Israel is well known; and it is regarded by some critics as a kind of self-willed fulfillment of prophecy. Some are alarmed by what else Christian Zionists envision being done to bring about the conversion of the Jews and the end of the world.
Zionism relates to fascism in the way that Zionists believe that they are the chosen people of God, just like fascists believe that only the strong and pure bloods can survive in a society. Also, that the Zionist way is the only way and no one can debate it. Zionism only became politicized when forced to face the threat from Fascism. Zionism became more political because of the attention it received from the fascist movement. The Zionists became isolated within the Jewish Community.

Welcome

Welcome to the blog for Political Science 250: Politics and Culture of Bavaria, taught by Leo Brux as part of Guilford College's 2009 Study Abroad Program in Munich, Germany.