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.