Welcome to Mr. Kirby's AP Euroblog. This site is for all CHS students and guest to comment on topics relating to AP Modern European history.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Baradat Readings
We will be playing catch-up due to my absence. Thus, to keep you thinking, I want you each to write a critical review of Baradat's Political Ideologies. Please support your opinion with well reasoned analysis and evidence!
15 comments:
Anonymous
said...
A negative quality about Baradats work, is that his book is formatted to support his bias, and it becomes hard to differ the bias and the fact. An example of this would be that he presents socialism, anarchism, and Marxism in separate chapters, yet puts capitalism in a chapter with liberal democracy. Liberal democracy and capitalism, however are separate from each other (although the two usually go hand in hand). Why not put liberal democracy with anarchism or socialism? Can’t a socialist society be a liberal democracy?
Liberal democracy is defined as “a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals” – (wikipedia “liberal democracy”). It seems that socialism would be even more of a liberal democracy, for example the right for everybody to get a college education is garneted in socialist society that make such colleges free, yet in capitalist America, that right is given to those who can afford the college. Baradat mixed capitalism with liberal democracy, assuming that capitalism is more of a liberal democracy than the others.
It would have been better to give capitalism its separate chapter, thus giving the reader an unbiased analysis on the different types of social order.
Baradat's Political Ideologies is an objective, fair look on a wide variety of principles developed throughout the course of history. Baradat presents an easy and informational discussion of different philosophies through his incorporation of background information, key people and terms and detailed, intricate thoughts of the minds behind the beliefs. Although perhaps not extensive in relaying the minute details of each ideology, Baradat lays down the facts needed for a foundation in the different ideologies throughout the past. Within each discussion, Baradat first introduces the reader to his topic, but then also includes information regarding the beginnings of each ideology. After his preview of Marxism, for example, Baradat then goes on to explain the history of communism and its original concepts, as well as to contrast these views with Marx’s beliefs. In doing so Baradat allows for the reader to understand how communism came about and how it has shaped and evolved from its original purpose. This knowledge is also effective to see how the time period in which Marx was living affected his philosophies. Baradat explains the conditions of Europe in Marx’s time to be “ a time when belief in science was at its peak…people began to suspect that just as there were laws governing other natural elements, there might also be laws governing human beings…and Marx was only one of the many who sought the ‘secret’ of human motivation,” (162). With his descriptions of conditions Baradat also explains how the reactionary time period and the Industrial Revolution both show that “Marx saw the state as little more than an instrument of power used by one class to dominate others, and that he believed only violence could bring about meaningful changes in society…and given the conditions of political oppression and economic exploitation, and the social evils that accompanied them, it is not difficult to understand how someone as perceptive as Marx could seek nothing less than radical change in the society,” (164-165). This background information relayed by Baradat allows for the reader to see not only the main ideas and thoughts of the ideology, but also why the founder or founders came to think as they did. In many cases, understanding their history is the key to understanding their actions. In order to make his writing more friendly Baradat also bolds and addresses key people and terms most important to each ideology. Followed by most of the bold words is a definition for unfamiliar terms. Both of these tools allow Baradat’s writing to be most helpful, especially to those who may know little about the topic. By bolding the major facts Baradat also allows for quick reference. In his section on Anarchism, Baradat presents the main differences between anarchy and anarchism to clear up any misconceptions before he goes into great detail. Through this he is able to present a better understanding of the ideology. Furthermore in this section he identifies the differences between individual and social anarchists, and separates them throughout the chapter with different headings to help clarify even more. By arranging them in this manner he lets the reader learn of the far right side of anarchism before presenting the far left side. This helps to avoid confusion about the beliefs of each side, and prevents them from getting muddled in the reader’s mind. Baradat’s use of identifying key terms and people as well as distinguishing between the different forms of each ideology creates a clear, informative picture for his audience. The most important feature of Baradat’s Political Ideologies is his objectiveness while writing. He presents only the founders beliefs and views and never expresses his own opinions, allowing for the reader to form their own ideas. This component makes for the best learning tool, as he does not tell you how to think, only what is important. In his description of Liberal Democracy and Capitalism, Baradat focuses on Edmund Burke’s contributions. “Burke was the father of modern conservative philosophy…He believed that a good government is one that keeps the peace…Burke believed that the institutions of any society are the products of the accumulated wisdom of centuries,” (92-93). With this form of writing Baradat tells the reader what Burke believd, and why he felt this way, but never addresses his own personal views on the matter. Instead, his neutral thoughts permit one to establish their own opinions on Burke and conservative philosophy. Never telling his audience how to feel, Baradat presents a very detached, yet informative look into political ideologies. Overall Baradat’s Political Ideologies is well written and enlightening on the theories of philosophies over the years. His style is meant for those who may not have an in depth understanding of each idea and he presents his information in a clear, simple way.
Mankind always formed governments in history with differing political ideologies. Tribes assigning a ruler to inherited monarchies to present day democracy and socialism have been in integral part in the formation or sometimes destruction of nations and kingdoms. Leon Baradat, following other political ideologists, assesses these differing political ideologies and explains them in a very simple manner. Marked as a socialist, Baradat emphasizes the positive aspects of socialism and adversely points out the weaknesses of capitalism. In review of the history surrounding political ideology, capitalism has passed from being a classical liberal philosophy of Adam Smith to a very conservative philosophy of economists such as Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman. The conservative definition presented by Baradat (the first reading in the first semester) is a completely liberal approach. He says, “Conservatives are base and even some what sinister” (23). Liberals, by definition, have been seekers of change progressively; because of this reason they have been known to accuse others by calling or assigning names in order to discredit (their own views are too weak to fully argue) the conservative base previously formed. Ronald Reagan always was able to point out the liberal name-calling during debates by saying, “There they go again,” when ever successive name calling would occur from the liberal opponent. Baradat also criticizes capitalism in the same way of name calling. After describing Ricardo’s theory of the Iron Law of Wages which states that an industry will only profit by cutting costs and maximizing productivity by paying its labor just enough to continue working, he begins discussing Malthus’ capitalist theories. He begins the paragraph with “Even gloomier than his colleague, Thomas Malthus….” (87). Baradat marks the ideologists and their theories (which are conservative/capitalist) as “gloomy.” Baradat is also not in favor of a working class, a seemingly necessary part of any civilization (peasants/serfs to factory/mine workers to a rising wealthy middle class). The United States is as prosperous as it is today because of the strong industrial base developed before World War II. Businesses were able to use the capitalist system to their advantage and build this base. Although exploited during the 1920’s leading to the Great Depression, World War II brought back America (and the World) to an economically stable state paving the road for a thriving and growing middle class continuing to this day. All of this aside, Baradat still assigns a name to the working class, or proletariat, “wage slaves” (174). Along with his discontent with capitalism, he criticizes Reagan’s supply-side economics, the base for capitalism (88). He mentions how the gap between the rich and the poor widened. However this is only partially true. Reagan gave many tax breaks to the companies and to individuals. By lowering taxes he gave the people back their economic freedoms denied by Jimmy Carter’s high tax resolutions. Businesses thrived which in turn hired more people with better salaries giving people more money so they could move up on the economic ladder. Reagan provided the incentive for the working class; the poor only became poorer if they did not seek their own advantages and also used the more conservative capitalist system established by Ronald Reagan. Unlike Baradat’s multiple attacks on capitalism and capitalists, he praises socialism. The tone of the socialist sections is generally much more positive. He rarely will say anything negative about the topic. He says, “Compulsive toil (having to work every waking hour just to survive), jailor of humanity for millennia, has finally been conquered” (190). Baradat’s diction indicates his content with the newly forming and progressing socialist system in the United States and most of Europe. As mentioned above, Baradat called the proletariat “wage slaves.” However, he never mentions what effect socialism has on an individual’s freedom. By increasing one’s taxes, the government deprives the people of a freedom: to spend their money as they see fit. The government spends the money one earns for the “common good” of the people. In a sense, the people become “slaves” to the government. Baradat presents facts concerning political ideologies; however he only presents the facts he would like to present. This is a propaganda technique used in the media that Baradat uses to persuade “first-time learners” of political ideology toward leftist liberal views. In order to fully understand any political ideology, one must read/learn about both views of politics in order for one to make a conscience, solid view on politics.
Baradat’s Political Ideologies served more as a source of information for me than a summary of previously known facts. Therefor, its hard to critique his writings, but more His chapter on capitalism was really focused on the poor, when in actuality that’s not the definition of capitalism. It is, in fact, an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. Baradat made is seem more like only way that capitalism would work was if the poor always stayed poor, and the rich continued to stay rich, at constant proportions. According to the iron law of wages, the owner of a company should only pay the workers as much money as they needed to go back and forth from work, but there is a flaw in that, causing this theory to not work today. This is that people can move, or just leave wherever they were working and find a better job somewhere else. This chapter seemed to really be focused on how the division of the rich and the poor would create the success for a society, when I think that a better understanding, for me at least, would be how he could connect capitalism to how the towns were developing, and what caused this theology to work or fail. I agree with Baradat when he says that anarchism only would influence a small group of people, but that influence would remain strong. Socail anarchists believe that the people should be free form the government to develop their greatest contributions to society. Individual anarchists believe that the government should be limited so that people could create whats best for themselves. He is also right when he says that anarchism is the most pure expression of individuality in politics. I found it helpful that in this section, he talked about the major people in anarchism and how their followers acter. It helped more to realise what kind of an influence such a small community of followers would have in government. I would have rather seen in the chapter about why Marx favored communism over any of the other ideologies. His tactics seemed to convery bits and pieces of all of the political views, but yet did not explain why he thought one was more effective than the others. Baradat says that if people were convinced that labor was enjoyable, it would ultimatly lead to no crime, war or human turmoil, and I don’t agree with that. Work is not what makes the world go around, so therefor I don’t think that anything would stop all those things. There is always jealousy, love, hate, and pressure that startle those things to happen. In Baradat’s socialism chapter, I do agree with the replacement of competition with cooperation would lead to a new era of greater productivity, thus leading to improved lifestyles. Although competition does drive people to out do other and create better things, I think that if, for example, to companies came together and shared ideas about similar products, the outcome of their compromise would be a better product than either of those companies would make on their own. I also agree with his idea of socialism, saying that it goes farther than just economic development, and makes relationships between individuals. Baradat’s views of these ideaologies does give insight on a variety of different ideas, and how governement can be run. His interpretations are likely to stir up a variety of opinions with anyone that analyzes them.
Baradat presents a factual and relatively unbiased view of several political ideologies. He begins with capitalism, and moves on to anarchism, Marxism, and socialism. Capitalism is probably the most biased chapter that we have read of Baradat so far. This is Baradat speaking of Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism: “It also encouraged the rich to redouble their efforts to expand their fortunes, even at the increased exploitation of the less fortunate, thus righteously asserting their advanced natures over the less worthy poor.” (Baradat 89) In this paragraph, Baradat paints a negative picture of the ideals of Social Darwinism, saying that its followers were self-righteous and exploitative. I don’t think that it is his place to condemn this theory. Obviously, the supporters of Social Darwinism did not mean to create this impression when they began the movement, unless they were genuinely evil people. Baradat should focus more on presenting the beliefs and reasoning behind this particular ideology, and less time telling the reader what to believe. Whether you agree with Baradat or not, it is important to look at the facts and try to sort out what they believe in for themselves. Once again his anti-capitalist bias is evident in this chapter as he discusses Reaganomics. He rips this form of capitalism as “untempered economic individualism”. Baradat clearly disagrees violently with the policies of capitalists and is happy when America begins its New Deal policies under FDR. Once again, this is unnecessary. We’re not interested in hearing his opinion. The important thing is that he shows the positive and negative effects of the capitalist ideology and leaves the reader to sort out whether it is successful or not. The rest of Baradat’s chapters are not so biased. He presents anarchism fairly well, but with a little bit of pro-anarchism bias. He makes sure to differentiate between the state of anarchy and the political belief of anarchism. This is important so that the reader can accept anarchism as a legitimate ideology. However, he goes on to spend several paragraphs defending anarchy, while neglecting to really describe the negative effects that anarchists have had in history. He mentions the Haymarket Riot, President McKinley’s assassination, and the Great Red Scare of 1919. However, he never really discusses the violence and destruction that anarchism caused during these events. Baradat is very careful to make sure that anarchy is recognized as “the purest form of democracy”. Basically, while it is important to take anarchism seriously, we can’t ignore the violence that has taken place because of anarchists. Baradat’s chapter on Marxism is also relatively free of bias. Not completely free, however as his leftist bias is evident in all of his discussions of capitalism. He begins the chapter with a brief overview of Marx’s life, and then gets into the three factors that most influence Marx. One of these factors is the Industrial Revolution. Here’s the last sentence in the segment on the Industrial Revolution: “Given these conditions of political oppression and economic exploitation, and the social evils that accompanied them, it is not difficult to understand how someone as perceptive as Marx could seek nothing less than radical change in the society.”(Baradat 165) This statement smacks of bias. First of all, it could be argued that capitalism was not a period of oppression and exploitation, this was just his opinion. Second, he makes the statement that Marx was very perceptive. This is just his opinion, some could argue that Marx was not perceptive at all considering he predicted a worker’s revolution 175 years ago; a revolution that still has not taken place. Besides this, I think he does a great job of presenting Marxism. He outlines where Marx was successful and correct, but he also outlines where Marx was incorrect. He manages to remain balanced through the rest of the chapter. The final chapter which we read of Baradat dealt with socialism. He presents socialism fairly. He speaks of how socialism has succeeded to lower the unemployment rate and decrease poverty, but he also makes sure to address issues such as the extremely large taxes imposed by socialist countries. Again, his bias shows when he discusses capitalism. Here’s what he says about America during the Great Depression: “Dazed and disoriented, the American people were slow to realize that they were victims of an irresponsible economic system, captained by people not necessarily devoted to the public interest but rather motivated by personal benefit.” Baradat rips capitalism again. He also portrays the American people as confused and ignorant. Baradat does eventually recognize the successes of capitalism, but he skewers it so many more times. From these chapters it could be drawn that Baradat is a socialist. This isn’t good. We should not be able to sense an author’s political affiliation from a work that is supposed to be totally factually based. Generally, Baradat does a fine job of informing his readers on different political ideologies, but his bias should be less clear in his writing.
I feel that Political Ideologies by Leon Baradat is an excellent presentation of various political views. It captures the fundamentals of each view, and expands on them, explaining how each view was developed, how it was applied, and how people reacted to it. It is very comprehensive, covering all you would need to know to have a basic understanding of each political view. The book is also very well organized, both in each chapter and between chapters. But, the book has one major flaw. It has a slight liberal bias. While this doesn’t disturb me, it may offend some of the more conservative readers of this book. But, overall it is a good read. Political Ideologies is an excellent book because of its organization and its use of examples but it falls short with a leftist bias. The most remarkable feature of this book is its incredible organization. Most books give you a chapter number and a block of text and ask you to digest it all, with no form of organization. Baradat goes much further than this. He first outlines major and minor headings, so that if you have a specific question, say on Orthodox Marxism, you wouldn’t need to read through the whole chapter to find it. You would just skim until you found the correct section. These sections are in a well though out order, each logically progressing from the last. Most chapters first trace the origins of the political theory trough its development, implication, and its effects. Also, Baradat’s use of bolded words helps the reader easily identify key points from the rest of the writing. Instead of reading a whole paragraph, and trying to decipher what is important and what is not, you can simply refer to the bolded words to find key points. All this organization makes Political Ideologies an easy read. The examples used in Political Ideologies makes the topics that he discusses easy to understand. Normally, a textbook will give you a long drawn out explanation of a political theory, with little examples or proof to back it up. But Baradat doesn’t follow the trend. He uses a myriad of examples and proof to support his ideas. For example, in his discussion of capitalism, Baradat first explains the various ideas about capitalism. Then, he gives examples of when these ideas were put into practice, and what happened to those affected by the new ideology. He covers reactions to capitalism too. His examples and explanations are very comprehensive, making this book easy to understand. Despite all of the good qualities this book has, it does have a slight leftist bias. A book of this type should be non-biased and present the facts straight. But, in a few instances, Baradat leaves out conservative views or over emphases liberal views. This is first evident in the lack of conservative figures he mentions throughout the book. It is also evident when he discusses liberal views, such as Marxism. He describes the proletariat as a “wage slave” (174). This is clearly a liberal view of Marxist ideas. Despite all the good qualities this book has, it falls short on staying neutral. Overall this is an excellent book. It is organized well, and is very comprehensive. The only fault it has is its slight liberal bias. A more neutral view would be better.
A moderately brisk read and an informative delivery on the topic, Leon Baradat's Political Ideologies served as proficient material in studying the advent of the isms. Covering the major political doctrines upwards of liberal democracies, Baradat provides worthy examples and analysis of each of the systems and their applications in the world today. However, throughout his analysis of the various political and economic philosophies, Baradat is unable to mask a degree of bias in his work.
Baradat writes of capitalism with much disdain, emphasizing the gap between rich and poor on numerous occasions. After introducing capitalism with underlying bigoted statements such as "Socialism asks people to cultivate a social consciousness; capitalism does not," and then followed by multiple cynical uses of “righteous” to describe the “robber barons” who dominated capitalist society, Baradat continues to bash capitalism smoothly, attempting to support at least one facet of the system stating, "Happily, this [social Darwinism-based] brutal phase of capitalism was abandoned with the reforms of the Progressive Era and, most important, with the New Deal” (86-88). He continually takes shots at modern conservative policies as he writes that “the passion for raw individualism… ran its course without destroying the foundations of the social and economic system of the New Deal” and again when he discusses the inherent flaws of capitalism that many misconceive as “malfunctions”, stating “It is clear, therefore, that capitalism depends on the existence of a tiny, enormously wealthy class” (88-89). Baradat seemingly catches himself and returns the focus off of the negatives of capitalism on page 91, reflecting on the power the capitalist United States has gained, but only to return directly after to rehash the ‘malicious’ machinations of the system, stating “Capitalism, in its purest form, rewards and protects only the ‘winners’” (91). Much of his description and conclusions of modern liberalism seem to bear leftist bias, including comments such as “this optimism about human character is typical of leftist ideologies”, (108).
Baradat continues his leftist commentary as he moves to discuss Anarchism, with subtle comments like “individualist anarchists, those on the right of the political spectrum, seek to limit government so that individuals can accomplish the greatest god for themselves alone” (141). He writes in his chapter on anarchism to underscore the fact that anarchism is not tied to anarchy, and seeks to clear misinterpretations in every paragraph. Baradat goes on in this section to sympathize heavily with anarchists, possibly having some ties to the party himself as he defends members who were persecuted as terrorists during the 1900’s, stating that “regrettably, his [Tolstoy] passive resistance approach was not seen… as a viable method for changing the system”, further supporting anarchism in a positive light through its association with peaceful methods (150). While it is not uncommon for any form of informative material to contain some small biases, Baradat’s work seems to heavily focus on the positives of any leftist form of theory, while ignoring those of the right- if not attacking them (such as the militia movement and individualist theories)- leading negative attention away from liberal idealology. He continues to include further evidence of the failures of right-wing theories as he writes “interestingly, with the recent decline of the labor unions and the rise of conservatism, American workers are again experiencing a reduction in real wages… as corporate profits climb” (167).
Overall, Baradat provides a very educational, albeit somewhat skewed look at the political philosophies that dominated the West during the 19th and 20th centuries. Many of these doctrines continue to evolve today, as we see what the effects of “neo-conservative” policies have had on our nation as a whole, and while many of our institutions and economic ties have ended up drawing us into self-inflicting economic losses such as wartime drains on the economy and a continual outsourcing of an ever greater array of jobs, we still remain the most powerful and influential nation in the world. But with the advent of China’s booming quasi-communist economy, who knows how philosophies may change if the United States - for mainly the first time since its creation- is succeeded in the new century as the largest economic force on earth.
In Baradat’s “Political Ideologies”, the four major political/economic systems, Capitalism, Anarchism, Marxism, and Socialism, are very carefully examined with special attention brought to the basic principles of each system. Though the descriptions of the individual philosophies are quite accurate, there are some elements that fail to resolve certain problems within the system.
The first system that Baradat addresses in his “Political Ideologies” is capitalism. Through this section of the reading, he accurately asserted that the main driving force under capitalism lies with the private sector, competitiveness, and the idea of laissez-faire. Here, the individual has the maximum capability of success, yet also has the distinct possibility of failure. Thus, Baradat asserts that capitalism is held together by an enormously wealthy minority with a large lower class. From the way that he describes the system as it is meant to be, as well as some of the interpretations used in the other forms of political ideology, it would appear that the author had somewhat of a bias against true capitalism. Though Burke is included as a balance to reinforce the idea of capitalism and that government should play a small role in economy and, the views of people like Mill and Thomas Green seemed to be more reinforced suggesting that the system of capitalism was somewhat corrupt and unjust. To be fair, Baradat does recognize early on that the system which the United States has adopted has become far more successful than any other and that we have a much higher standard of living and far greater rights as the most powerful nation in the world.
When the article addresses the first form of anarchy, social anarchy, it is entirely valid in the basic principles used to establish the system. Anarchism, as the author argues, is nothing more than the purest form of democracy. While the system does assert that the government is the greatest oppressors of the people, it also recognizes that most anarchists do not advocate total loss of structure and pure chaos as is thought by most of the West. However, when individual anarchism is brought into the situation, one can see that this is nothing more than an attempt by greedy persons who want power solely for themselves. This is especially prevalent with Max Stirner when he declares things like, “The people are dead. Up with me!” Clearly, this is the type of anarchism that leads most other people to view the system as chaotic and violent.
What was probably the most detailed political ideology in this article was Marxism. Based upon the idea of equality for all people, Marxism, or equivocally communism, adopts much of the socialist philosophy to a very great extreme. People are supposed to work together for a common good and accept the same wages as everyone else. To spawn this, a violent revolution, according to Marx, was inevitable as a result of the oppressions of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. Here, a dictator would initially take power for stability and then a second revolution would occur where the leader gave up his power to the people. While the article spends much length in describing how the intended system is supposed to work and how it is plausible in the correctly applied sense, it ignores the reality of communism in every country that has adopted it. From the system of communism, history has shown that brutal dictators are brought to power who refuse to give it up. The article never answers the question as to what has caused most of the major communist countries to partake in oppressive policies and in many cases mass murder/genocide. It is very startling as to how many people have fallen victims to communist regimes where countries commit genocide like Russia, China, and to a lesser extent (and by a lesser extent I mean 2-3 million) Vietnam. While communism may appear good on paper, history has shown that it is a dismal failure when it is applied in the real world.
The last political system that is examined in the article is socialism. One of the first points of the article was to distinguish socialism from communism in that “all communists are socialists but not all socialists are Marxists”. Along with the description of the socialist system, which was fairly accurate and informative, this chapter appeared to show a very great bias against the Western system of capitalism in favor of a much more liberal system. Suggesting that capitalism as it really is was extremely disastrous and repressive to the lower class, the article touted the systems of government support/welfare and the greatness of the New Deal. However, what this section of the reading does not address is the fact that the semi-socialist reforms made by the New Deal in 1933 were largely unsuccessful and did nothing to stop the depression. Rather than have the socialistic reforms prevail, it took World War II to bring America out of the depression. While socialists declare that the welfare state is the only natural system under democracy that can exist, most recognize the individual must have a degree of freedom in order for society to function. Thus, such institutions as the Socialist International have even adopted such a philosophy.
It is important to realize the difference between systems that appear to work on paper and those that can actually succeed in practice. In the end, one must recognize that capitalism in the west has prevailed over all other systems of political ideology that have developed in the 20th Century.
Baradat’s Political Ideologies is an extremely useful source for the study of political principles. Baradat is very informative and provides the reader with a wide range of aspects covering specific topics.
In most chapters, Baradat starts with a description and background information of each ideology and the origins and development of these ideologies. He also discusses the different forms of each ideology. Baradat includes biographies of important political figures and philosophers who in some way impacted the ideology. He identifies the historical settings in which these political figures lived and connects it to how the ideologies developed. This logical organization helped me to understand the reasons why these ideologies contain the doctrines that they do.
Baradat provides information from both American and European politics as he elaborates on each ideology. Also, he uses modern examples to provide more information about each principle. For example, in the chapter on anarchism, Baradat brings up militant civilian militias. To provide an example of modern day militant civilian militias, Baradat discusses the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings. Although the suspected bombers were not actually members of a militia, their ideas were very similar to those of militant civilian militias. By providing theses contemporary examples, I am able to better understand and connect the concepts that Baradat is explaining.
Baradat’s inclusion of so many different aspects of a political ideology definitely helps me to begin to understand the wide array of political ideologies that exist. Baradat’s writings contained a great deal of useful and interesting material which summarized the history and ideas of many major ideologies.
Throughout Baradat’s reading of his political ideologies, his tone was one that was biased to every topic. In every governing idea, he was not in favor of capitalism, anarchism, marxism, or socialism. Although, he did spend a great deal of time speaking of anarchism, he still had a negative attitude towards its’ ideas and ways. Aside from focusing on anarchism more than any other form of government, Baradat is bias in that he doesn’t give any personal input as to what he thinks or feels about each topic. Much of the reading is informative and its purpose is to teach us, as opposed to sharing Baradat’s personal beliefs on which government is the best one to live under. The information that is provided is factual and can be found in many other readings. Baradats writing makes it no different from any other. There is no personal voice that one can connect to and really look into to properly analyze Baradat’s view of these various political ideologies.
Mark Morris AP European History 9 February 2007 Mr. Kirby
Analytical Statements on the Works of Leon P. Baradat
In class we are reading the Ideologies of Baradat, to help further acquaint ourselves with the political systems, philosophies, and ideologies of our past and present, as well as the important political leaders who introduced, influenced, or built upon these ideas. In the most recent of our readings we have learned about the four political outlooks of Capitalism, Anarchism, Marxism, and Socialism. In the chapters we have read Baradat has presented his views and commentary on the ideologies of these four political policies. Capitalism is the first of the four political ideologies that was portrayed to us in the readings of Baradat. The chapter itself is generally well organized, first giving an overview of the ideologies, then following up with the people who came up with or influenced the philosophy. Baradat first describes how capitalism is broken up into two major variants that of liberal democracy and that democratic socialism. After this blurb we are introduced to the people that influenced capitalism, the first of which is Adam Smith. He rejected the mercantilist economic system and came up with the basic elements of capitalism. One of his most important principals was that of laissez-faire, which means hands off. It states that the government should have no say in the economy, and that competition was the driving force of the economy as well as supply and demand. After Adam Smith came men like David Ricardo, and Thomas Malthus, who were two English economists. Ricardo came up with the principal of the Iron Law of Wages which stated that companies should only pay their workers enough to survive. This would keep them coming back to work as well as maximizing profit. This however did not take into account the fluctuation in the economy in which labor supply might be in demand, and the workers could pick their jobs, and not compete for jobs in factories. Malthus came up with a principal that stated that food was not increasing at a fast enough rate and that soon there would be wide spread famine for there was too many people and not enough food. This however was also false. As we read more we learn of more people such as Herbert Spencer and his Social Darwinism, or as we know it survival of the fittest. As we learn of American Capitalism we learn that Baradat has a rather negative view towards this subject. He bombarded the reader with statements saying that the Regan administration put us into dept, and that capitalism widened the gap between the rich and the poor. However it still kept the US on its feet and we are still together as a nation. Baradat also describes how our tax system is funded by the wealthy and that’s who profits the most from capitalism. It is their money and investments that keep our economy afloat. This does not seem to please Baradat, for he does not agree with the social stratification. This brings into play a man named Edmund Burke. He was a very conservative man and father of the modern conservative philosophy. He was very Hobbsian in his views believing that people were a foolish mass. He claimed that in order to rule one needed property, ability, and high birth. Though he believed in people it was the elite that he saw fit enough to rule. He also viewed people as unequal, some were gifted others were not. To Burke a democracy were people vote in others whom they believe will rule in their best interests. Baradat’s views on Capitalism seem to be relatively positive but when it comes to American Capitalism he does not like the fragile system it has become. The next political ideology that was discussed was anarchism. When most people come to hear anarchism they think chaos, unruliness, and disorganization. This however is not at all true. Anarchism in its most basic sense contains the most limited government. Anarchism is seen by Baradat is the misunderstood theory. Although roots can be traced back to ancient Greece it isn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century that its views began to centralize. It is anarchist belief that that government impedes society there for it must be done away with. Some anarchists believe in that basic government is acceptable, but only the most basic forms. (All government offices should be disbanded.) Also according to Baradat anarchists believe that self government is the best way for the people to live for they are free to do as they please and this will there for better society, for there is no restrictions from an oppressive government. Basically Baradat states that anarchist want to maximize human liberty. Many of the violent anarchist claims can be traced back to a man named Mikihail Bakunin. It was he who came up with many of the violent theories of how to take down society. There are two main types of anarchy social anarchy and individualist anarchy. Social anarchy is the ideology that when government is abolished people as a whole mill make great contributions. Individualist anarchy can be closely tied to Social Darwinism, in the fact that once government is gone it is up to t he individual to make the most of his time on earth. There are several theories of anarchism mentioned in our readings. One of which is Pacifism. Its founding father one could say is William Goodwin. He renounces all government institutions, whether it be government offices to government funded education, anything to do with government was wrong in his eyes. He believed that people would naturally create a harmonious society. A man named Pierre Joseph Proudhon gave Godwin’s theory political depth and an economic perspective when he came up with his Labor Theory of Value. This stated that the value of a product was equal to the amount of labor needed to produce it. Baradat seems to praise the views of anarchism and pacifism for he says nothing negative about them, and even seems to enjoy writing out the theories. His diction is more happy and joyful than in the previously mentioned capitalism. However there is the darker side on anarchy. The more violent side headed by revolutionary fanatics like Mikhail Bakunin and Kropotkin. These men especially Bakunin believed that the only way to bring about total anarchy was to bring government crashing to t he ground through violence. Bakunin thought that anything that survived must have been worth saving. Others that followed Bakunin schemed and plotted and did everything they could to overthrow government. The last form of anarchism discussed by Baradat was that of Individualist Anarchism. Here we learn of Max Sterner who viewed people as very individualistic, and responsible for no one but themselves. Baradat seems to hold anarchism in higher regard than he does capitalism. He seems to appeal more to the freedom without government and the equality for all rather than the grand mass ruled and owned by a select and privileged few. His diction says it all. In the capitalism section it seems long winded and a boring lecture, of its fault, while for anarchism it was written as though there is hope for this ideology yet. Marxism is the third ideology discussed by Baradat. A man by the name of Karl Marx a German philosopher believed he came up with a political ideology that states that people’s ideas are conditioned by their economic environment. His theory said that in time a dictatorship will lead a revolution that once completed will hand over its power to create a classless society will evolve due to the fact that people will be more productive without government rule, and that peace and happiness will prevail. This idea according to Baradat had been around since the dawn of time and it was merely Marx who brought it to light. A branch off of his teachings is Socialism which will be discussed later. However Marx spread his teachings around Europe and was kicked out of one country after another, meeting a man in Paris named Frederich Engels, who eventually took up leadership in the communist movement. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto which stated his ideas. Marx thought what he had done was a science for the time period he lived in warranted such thinking, but by Baradat’s description of Marx he makes him out to be someone who just took a bunch of other peoples ideas and became famous for presenting them. Baradat seems to think of Marx as a man who should be accused of plagiarism. This is shown through the many side notes pointing out who said what before Marx. Marx thought of communism as the ability to free workers of compulsive toil, or working long hours just to survive. This appealed at the time for the Industrial Revolution was occurring and it was perfect for all of the nations who were industrializing. Marx’s sociological theory believed in economic determinism which stated that people’s motivation is economic. Also society was based on foundation (means of production, and relations of production) and Superstructure (art, law, religion, ideology ets.) His many other theories include Marx’s historical theory, Marx’s Theory of Work, Theory of Value, Marx’s theory of Revolution, and his political system. Marx had everything so well planned out. He stated how there was to be a revolution and people would take charge to lead it, what was to occur during the revolution, and how it would be finished, with everyone stepping down and returning power to the people. All of these ideas were all well and good but were not applied under any of the circumstances Marx intended them to so we still do not know if Marxism is actually a relevant form of government. Baradat did not seem too pleased with the idea of Communism for he wrote with more of a somber even sarcastic diction. This brings me to the last form of government discussed by Baradat, which is Socialism. This was the vaguest and least easily describable chapter I have read from Baradat. It too me does not seem like Baradat knew what he was talking about for it certainly confused me. What I did get between the many Marxist references was that to be socialist one needed to have socialist intent. This is basically abundance for all, a utopian society. Here there is enough for everyone, and all are happy. Everyone is on his or her commune, sharing all their goods and working side by side happily. The other to parts of socialism, are ownership and production which is shared by everyone. Everyone owns everything, and everyone helps produce the products. The last part is the welfare state which means that the government gives everything and provides everything for the people. Health care, insurance, protection, and everything else are the government’s responsibility. What I also think is that Baradat believes that Marxism and socialism go hand in hand due to the gratuitous amount of references to the later throughout the reading. He however does not like either due constant criticism of both. These readings though very learned are greatly biased by the author. Though not without value I would turn to other sources especially when researching topics like Marxism and Socialism, for Baradat’s criticisms are tend to be focused especially on these two aspects of government.
Andrew Morris AP European History 2/9/07 Mr. Kirby
Analysis of the Four Main Political Ideologies
The Baradat reading we were asked to do this week had four main ideologies in it. They were at one end of the spectrum anarchism to capitalism to socialism to communism. For each ideology Baradat presented his views of them and helped us better understand them as a whole. The first ideology mentioned by Baradat was Capitalism. This appeared to be Baradat’s least favorite of all the ideologies he discussed. What he didn’t like most about Capitalism was the fact that so only a few people had control over the lives and welfare of so many. He was talking of course about the company owners who controlled the economy. They decided what products to make and their prices and could greatly change the economy if they wanted. Baradat seemed to want the people to have the power to regulate the economy and not be lorded over and controlled by just a few rich men. Baradat also mentioned the “hands off” idea of capitalism. This part of capitalism meant that the government let the business do their own thing. This meant that big companies could destroy smaller ones and the government couldn’t really regulate the businesses. Capitalism wasn’t Baradat’s favorite ideology but he made some good points in his review of it. The next ideology Baradat mentioned was anarchism. This seemed to be his favorite ideology. He also seemed to think that it was the most misunderstood. When most people think of anarchy they think of chaos and burning and such. Baradat stresses that this is not the case. Anarchism is pure democracy. In anarchism there is no government and bureaucrats to get in the way of decision making. Many anarchists see the government an obstacle in the way of human progress. Baradat believes that anarchism has been given a bad name because of the violence that certain but not nearly all anarchists use to implement their policies. Anarchists believe that people can be motivated to work for the common good and that they will help each other and don’t need a government to watch over them. They believe that they can provide for themselves. The next ideology Baradat talks about is communism. Baradat dislikes communism because though many of its ideas sound good but in reality are very impractical. He explains that communism is an extreme brand of socialism and that all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists. He states that communism has been around since recorded history as communal living. The communism we are familiar with today is Marx’s brand of communism. Marx believed that to make a perfect world a classless society where everyone worked towards the common good was needed. Baradat thought that this was good but not feasible because not everyone would agree to this idea. Some would be lazier than others and some would see that their jobs deserved bigger rewards than others. Also Marx’s thought to bring this society about the working class would rise up and oust the wealthy factory workers and become a society of all workers. Baradat thought many of Marx’s beliefs were paradoxical and therefore illogical but phenomenal ideas. The final ideology that was discussed was socialism. Baradat seemed to closely associate communism and socialism. He describes socialism as an economic idea, government, social and political philosophy. Baradat describes socialism needed the government to control the major businesses and public services to the people, like communism Also the government should provide jobs for the poor and houses, as well as education and medication to all the people. However, it differs from communism because people are allowed to work for themselves and can own different possessions than their neighbors and makes more money than they do. Baradat seems to think that socialism is a more realistic form of communism. He seems to be more open toward it because it is more plausible. Even though it seems that Baradat liked to put many of his political and social slants in his work these readings were very informative.
The political ideologies written by Baradat were comparing the differences between capitalism, anarchism, and Marxism. Although Baradat makes the effort to research in depth and touch upon individual people such as Adam Smith in the creation of capitalism, Baradat seems to lack the substance of explaining how society run by the terms of each individual ideology would go about.
In capitalism, Baradat is critical in judging Adam Smith who started capitalism with obvious references to John Locke as a liberal. John Locke’s belief that “the good of the whole is best served when each person pursues his or her own self-interest” is mirrored to Locke’s belief that human nature is best left to govern on its own and that it is up to human beings to create the best possible economic structure with little interference of the government beyond regulation and protection of “life, liberty, and property.” Despite Baradat delving in the negative aspects of capitalism through Riccardo and his Iron Law of Wages and also the Malthus report, he seemed to fail in explaining a direct relationship between the Industrial Revolution and capitalism. It seems extremely contradictory that he would categorize the two as capitalists when they both put the interest of a very small majority ahead of that of others. By doing this, it seems to hinder the idea of every man having the chance to pursue his own self interest to the greatest extent when he would instead be trapped in an endless cycle mandated by factory owners.
Anarchism seems to be an odd subject when thinking in perspective of the associated meaning of the word in comparison with the definition of anarchy. Most people think of an anarchy as a state of chaos, etc, yet to anarchist believers of the time, they instead thought of anarchism as “the purest form of democracy.” The beliefs of social anarchists in reducing or eliminating governmental institutions to allow individual people to make the greatest possible contribution to society seems rather implausibly. Although Stirner ends up suggesting the “humanity is best served when people advance or fall back in relation to their individual abilities,” it seems unrealistic when thinking about human nature. As someone that believes that government is necessary for the human species to maintain order in an otherwise state of chaos, it seems extremely unlikely that people would “advance or fall back” for the betterment of humanity when humans at heart, are true capitalists and will only think to serve themselves, even at the expense of others and beyond environmental or personal limitations. Even disregarding the true theories of anarchism, Mikhail Bakunin and the lumpenproletariats are distinguished from other ideologies in association with anarchism. Needless to say, Bakunin’s ideas would have never been successful, but it seems rather ironic that such an event had even happened and Baradat hadn’t been very biased when reviewing that of a sadistic man.
Of all the ideologies appealed to by Baradat, perhaps the most note worthy was that of Marxism. The idea of a state of equality, people working together and ruled by a government that sought maximize capital profit seemed like the best idea ever, yet it never caught on in the large industrialized countries. How is it that such a great theory didn’t sweep across the continents and glorify the nations into an era of fortune and prosperity? Baradat, although extensive in his research of what the government should until the nation could maintain stability, never quite specified the role of the government or leader afterwards. Although this could said to be inferred, this seems to be the biggest fault of Baradat which would directly relate to the corruption of communist leaders in large countries as exhibited by today’s communist countries.
The stages in which capitalism went into anarchism, and from anarchism into Marxism seems to end with the final ideology of socialism. It seems to be the optimum goal of societies today, yet at the same time, it seems unachievable. Unlike Marxism, socialism would have the people working together equally to serve the betterment of the community as a whole rather than of the government, but it seems extremely unrealistic. As proposed by Social Darwinism, human nature simply put is survival of the fittest as Baradat points out, and it seems conflicting that people would set aside their personal desires and settle for something less. Baradat also fails to point out in what areas socialism would ever be successful. While Marxism eventually develops into a theory that could be forced upon the people despite their general will, socialism seems too forgiving in the sense that Social Darwinism is an inevitable factor and will always affect the ideologies any perfect democracy that all nations alike, past or present, strive to achieve. To strive to achieve this seems to be the fault of the nations in trying to achieve something that is simply intangible.
Baradat's Political Ideologies was easy to read compared to past readings and was presented in an organized fashion. Of the three main sections; capitalism, anarchism, and Marxism, I found anarchism to be the most interesting. Those people, such as Emma Goldman and William Godwin, had the most impact on the way I read the article. William Godwin’s ideas as the founder of modern anarchism had a great impact on the people of his time. He spread the ideas of self-government and individualism. Godwin of course was not alone in his ideals for many such as Rousseau and other leftists shared in his thoughts. Emma Goldman, in the same mind set as Godwin, advocated radical causes as well as women’s rights. Goldman seemed to be the most interesting person to read about simply because of her passion for politics and her individual ideals. Of course Baradat would not agree with me as far as which of the three ideals, capitalism, anarchism, or Marxism, is the most correct for he seems to be carrying a bias through the entire packet leaning towards socialism. In the last section of Marxism Baradat describes just how intertwined the ideas of socialism and Marxism are thereby excluding capitalism and anarchism. It is clear that Baradat has a certain dislike for capitalism and that would be understandable coming from one who favors socialism/Marxism. Overall I thought this packet gave out just the right amount of information so that the readers would be slightly bias in the authors favor, but the actual facts are strong enough to allow readers to create their own opinions about capitalism, anarchism, and socialism.
15 comments:
A negative quality about Baradats work, is that his book is formatted to support his bias, and it becomes hard to differ the bias and the fact. An example of this would be that he presents socialism, anarchism, and Marxism in separate chapters, yet puts capitalism in a chapter with liberal democracy. Liberal democracy and capitalism, however are separate from each other (although the two usually go hand in hand). Why not put liberal democracy with anarchism or socialism? Can’t a socialist society be a liberal democracy?
Liberal democracy is defined as “a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals” – (wikipedia “liberal democracy”). It seems that socialism would be even more of a liberal democracy, for example the right for everybody to get a college education is garneted in socialist society that make such colleges free, yet in capitalist America, that right is given to those who can afford the college. Baradat mixed capitalism with liberal democracy, assuming that capitalism is more of a liberal democracy than the others.
It would have been better to give capitalism its separate chapter, thus giving the reader an unbiased analysis on the different types of social order.
Baradat's Political Ideologies is an objective, fair look on a wide variety of principles developed throughout the course of history. Baradat presents an easy and informational discussion of different philosophies through his incorporation of background information, key people and terms and detailed, intricate thoughts of the minds behind the beliefs. Although perhaps not extensive in relaying the minute details of each ideology, Baradat lays down the facts needed for a foundation in the different ideologies throughout the past.
Within each discussion, Baradat first introduces the reader to his topic, but then also includes information regarding the beginnings of each ideology. After his preview of Marxism, for example, Baradat then goes on to explain the history of communism and its original concepts, as well as to contrast these views with Marx’s beliefs. In doing so Baradat allows for the reader to understand how communism came about and how it has shaped and evolved from its original purpose. This knowledge is also effective to see how the time period in which Marx was living affected his philosophies. Baradat explains the conditions of Europe in Marx’s time to be “ a time when belief in science was at its peak…people began to suspect that just as there were laws governing other natural elements, there might also be laws governing human beings…and Marx was only one of the many who sought the ‘secret’ of human motivation,” (162). With his descriptions of conditions Baradat also explains how the reactionary time period and the Industrial Revolution both show that “Marx saw the state as little more than an instrument of power used by one class to dominate others, and that he believed only violence could bring about meaningful changes in society…and given the conditions of political oppression and economic exploitation, and the social evils that accompanied them, it is not difficult to understand how someone as perceptive as Marx could seek nothing less than radical change in the society,” (164-165). This background information relayed by Baradat allows for the reader to see not only the main ideas and thoughts of the ideology, but also why the founder or founders came to think as they did. In many cases, understanding their history is the key to understanding their actions.
In order to make his writing more friendly Baradat also bolds and addresses key people and terms most important to each ideology. Followed by most of the bold words is a definition for unfamiliar terms. Both of these tools allow Baradat’s writing to be most helpful, especially to those who may know little about the topic. By bolding the major facts Baradat also allows for quick reference. In his section on Anarchism, Baradat presents the main differences between anarchy and anarchism to clear up any misconceptions before he goes into great detail. Through this he is able to present a better understanding of the ideology. Furthermore in this section he identifies the differences between individual and social anarchists, and separates them throughout the chapter with different headings to help clarify even more. By arranging them in this manner he lets the reader learn of the far right side of anarchism before presenting the far left side. This helps to avoid confusion about the beliefs of each side, and prevents them from getting muddled in the reader’s mind. Baradat’s use of identifying key terms and people as well as distinguishing between the different forms of each ideology creates a clear, informative picture for his audience.
The most important feature of Baradat’s Political Ideologies is his objectiveness while writing. He presents only the founders beliefs and views and never expresses his own opinions, allowing for the reader to form their own ideas. This component makes for the best learning tool, as he does not tell you how to think, only what is important. In his description of Liberal Democracy and Capitalism, Baradat focuses on Edmund Burke’s contributions. “Burke was the father of modern conservative philosophy…He believed that a good government is one that keeps the peace…Burke believed that the institutions of any society are the products of the accumulated wisdom of centuries,” (92-93). With this form of writing Baradat tells the reader what Burke believd, and why he felt this way, but never addresses his own personal views on the matter. Instead, his neutral thoughts permit one to establish their own opinions on Burke and conservative philosophy. Never telling his audience how to feel, Baradat presents a very detached, yet informative look into political ideologies.
Overall Baradat’s Political Ideologies is well written and enlightening on the theories of philosophies over the years. His style is meant for those who may not have an in depth understanding of each idea and he presents his information in a clear, simple way.
Mankind always formed governments in history with differing political ideologies. Tribes assigning a ruler to inherited monarchies to present day democracy and socialism have been in integral part in the formation or sometimes destruction of nations and kingdoms. Leon Baradat, following other political ideologists, assesses these differing political ideologies and explains them in a very simple manner. Marked as a socialist, Baradat emphasizes the positive aspects of socialism and adversely points out the weaknesses of capitalism.
In review of the history surrounding political ideology, capitalism has passed from being a classical liberal philosophy of Adam Smith to a very conservative philosophy of economists such as Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman. The conservative definition presented by Baradat (the first reading in the first semester) is a completely liberal approach. He says, “Conservatives are base and even some what sinister” (23). Liberals, by definition, have been seekers of change progressively; because of this reason they have been known to accuse others by calling or assigning names in order to discredit (their own views are too weak to fully argue) the conservative base previously formed. Ronald Reagan always was able to point out the liberal name-calling during debates by saying, “There they go again,” when ever successive name calling would occur from the liberal opponent. Baradat also criticizes capitalism in the same way of name calling. After describing Ricardo’s theory of the Iron Law of Wages which states that an industry will only profit by cutting costs and maximizing productivity by paying its labor just enough to continue working, he begins discussing Malthus’ capitalist theories. He begins the paragraph with “Even gloomier than his colleague, Thomas Malthus….” (87). Baradat marks the ideologists and their theories (which are conservative/capitalist) as “gloomy.”
Baradat is also not in favor of a working class, a seemingly necessary part of any civilization (peasants/serfs to factory/mine workers to a rising wealthy middle class). The United States is as prosperous as it is today because of the strong industrial base developed before World War II. Businesses were able to use the capitalist system to their advantage and build this base. Although exploited during the 1920’s leading to the Great Depression, World War II brought back America (and the World) to an economically stable state paving the road for a thriving and growing middle class continuing to this day. All of this aside, Baradat still assigns a name to the working class, or proletariat, “wage slaves” (174).
Along with his discontent with capitalism, he criticizes Reagan’s supply-side economics, the base for capitalism (88). He mentions how the gap between the rich and the poor widened. However this is only partially true. Reagan gave many tax breaks to the companies and to individuals. By lowering taxes he gave the people back their economic freedoms denied by Jimmy Carter’s high tax resolutions. Businesses thrived which in turn hired more people with better salaries giving people more money so they could move up on the economic ladder. Reagan provided the incentive for the working class; the poor only became poorer if they did not seek their own advantages and also used the more conservative capitalist system established by Ronald Reagan.
Unlike Baradat’s multiple attacks on capitalism and capitalists, he praises socialism. The tone of the socialist sections is generally much more positive. He rarely will say anything negative about the topic. He says, “Compulsive toil (having to work every waking hour just to survive), jailor of humanity for millennia, has finally been conquered” (190). Baradat’s diction indicates his content with the newly forming and progressing socialist system in the United States and most of Europe. As mentioned above, Baradat called the proletariat “wage slaves.” However, he never mentions what effect socialism has on an individual’s freedom. By increasing one’s taxes, the government deprives the people of a freedom: to spend their money as they see fit. The government spends the money one earns for the “common good” of the people. In a sense, the people become “slaves” to the government.
Baradat presents facts concerning political ideologies; however he only presents the facts he would like to present. This is a propaganda technique used in the media that Baradat uses to persuade “first-time learners” of political ideology toward leftist liberal views. In order to fully understand any political ideology, one must read/learn about both views of politics in order for one to make a conscience, solid view on politics.
Baradat’s Political Ideologies served more as a source of information for me than a summary of previously known facts. Therefor, its hard to critique his writings, but more
His chapter on capitalism was really focused on the poor, when in actuality that’s not the definition of capitalism. It is, in fact, an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. Baradat made is seem more like only way that capitalism would work was if the poor always stayed poor, and the rich continued to stay rich, at constant proportions. According to the iron law of wages, the owner of a company should only pay the workers as much money as they needed to go back and forth from work, but there is a flaw in that, causing this theory to not work today. This is that people can move, or just leave wherever they were working and find a better job somewhere else. This chapter seemed to really be focused on how the division of the rich and the poor would create the success for a society, when I think that a better understanding, for me at least, would be how he could connect capitalism to how the towns were developing, and what caused this theology to work or fail.
I agree with Baradat when he says that anarchism only would influence a small group of people, but that influence would remain strong. Socail anarchists believe that the people should be free form the government to develop their greatest contributions to society. Individual anarchists believe that the government should be limited so that people could create whats best for themselves. He is also right when he says that anarchism is the most pure expression of individuality in politics. I found it helpful that in this section, he talked about the major people in anarchism and how their followers acter. It helped more to realise what kind of an influence such a small community of followers would have in government.
I would have rather seen in the chapter about why Marx favored communism over any of the other ideologies. His tactics seemed to convery bits and pieces of all of the political views, but yet did not explain why he thought one was more effective than the others. Baradat says that if people were convinced that labor was enjoyable, it would ultimatly lead to no crime, war or human turmoil, and I don’t agree with that. Work is not what makes the world go around, so therefor I don’t think that anything would stop all those things. There is always jealousy, love, hate, and pressure that startle those things to happen.
In Baradat’s socialism chapter, I do agree with the replacement of competition with cooperation would lead to a new era of greater productivity, thus leading to improved lifestyles. Although competition does drive people to out do other and create better things, I think that if, for example, to companies came together and shared ideas about similar products, the outcome of their compromise would be a better product than either of those companies would make on their own. I also agree with his idea of socialism, saying that it goes farther than just economic development, and makes relationships between individuals.
Baradat’s views of these ideaologies does give insight on a variety of different ideas, and how governement can be run. His interpretations are likely to stir up a variety of opinions with anyone that analyzes them.
Baradat presents a factual and relatively unbiased view of several political ideologies. He begins with capitalism, and moves on to anarchism, Marxism, and socialism. Capitalism is probably the most biased chapter that we have read of Baradat so far. This is Baradat speaking of Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism:
“It also encouraged the rich to redouble their efforts to expand their fortunes, even at the increased exploitation of the less fortunate, thus righteously asserting their advanced natures over the less worthy poor.” (Baradat 89)
In this paragraph, Baradat paints a negative picture of the ideals of Social Darwinism, saying that its followers were self-righteous and exploitative. I don’t think that it is his place to condemn this theory. Obviously, the supporters of Social Darwinism did not mean to create this impression when they began the movement, unless they were genuinely evil people. Baradat should focus more on presenting the beliefs and reasoning behind this particular ideology, and less time telling the reader what to believe. Whether you agree with Baradat or not, it is important to look at the facts and try to sort out what they believe in for themselves. Once again his anti-capitalist bias is evident in this chapter as he discusses Reaganomics. He rips this form of capitalism as “untempered economic individualism”. Baradat clearly disagrees violently with the policies of capitalists and is happy when America begins its New Deal policies under FDR. Once again, this is unnecessary. We’re not interested in hearing his opinion. The important thing is that he shows the positive and negative effects of the capitalist ideology and leaves the reader to sort out whether it is successful or not.
The rest of Baradat’s chapters are not so biased. He presents anarchism fairly well, but with a little bit of pro-anarchism bias. He makes sure to differentiate between the state of anarchy and the political belief of anarchism. This is important so that the reader can accept anarchism as a legitimate ideology. However, he goes on to spend several paragraphs defending anarchy, while neglecting to really describe the negative effects that anarchists have had in history. He mentions the Haymarket Riot, President McKinley’s assassination, and the Great Red Scare of 1919. However, he never really discusses the violence and destruction that anarchism caused during these events. Baradat is very careful to make sure that anarchy is recognized as “the purest form of democracy”. Basically, while it is important to take anarchism seriously, we can’t ignore the violence that has taken place because of anarchists.
Baradat’s chapter on Marxism is also relatively free of bias. Not completely free, however as his leftist bias is evident in all of his discussions of capitalism. He begins the chapter with a brief overview of Marx’s life, and then gets into the three factors that most influence Marx. One of these factors is the Industrial Revolution. Here’s the last sentence in the segment on the Industrial Revolution:
“Given these conditions of political oppression and economic exploitation, and the social evils that accompanied them, it is not difficult to understand how someone as perceptive as Marx could seek nothing less than radical change in the society.”(Baradat 165)
This statement smacks of bias. First of all, it could be argued that capitalism was not a period of oppression and exploitation, this was just his opinion. Second, he makes the statement that Marx was very perceptive. This is just his opinion, some could argue that Marx was not perceptive at all considering he predicted a worker’s revolution 175 years ago; a revolution that still has not taken place. Besides this, I think he does a great job of presenting Marxism. He outlines where Marx was successful and correct, but he also outlines where Marx was incorrect. He manages to remain balanced through the rest of the chapter.
The final chapter which we read of Baradat dealt with socialism. He presents socialism fairly. He speaks of how socialism has succeeded to lower the unemployment rate and decrease poverty, but he also makes sure to address issues such as the extremely large taxes imposed by socialist countries. Again, his bias shows when he discusses capitalism. Here’s what he says about America during the Great Depression:
“Dazed and disoriented, the American people were slow to realize that they were victims of an irresponsible economic system, captained by people not necessarily devoted to the public interest but rather motivated by personal benefit.”
Baradat rips capitalism again. He also portrays the American people as confused and ignorant. Baradat does eventually recognize the successes of capitalism, but he skewers it so many more times.
From these chapters it could be drawn that Baradat is a socialist. This isn’t good. We should not be able to sense an author’s political affiliation from a work that is supposed to be totally factually based. Generally, Baradat does a fine job of informing his readers on different political ideologies, but his bias should be less clear in his writing.
I feel that Political Ideologies by Leon Baradat is an excellent presentation of various political views. It captures the fundamentals of each view, and expands on them, explaining how each view was developed, how it was applied, and how people reacted to it. It is very comprehensive, covering all you would need to know to have a basic understanding of each political view. The book is also very well organized, both in each chapter and between chapters. But, the book has one major flaw. It has a slight liberal bias. While this doesn’t disturb me, it may offend some of the more conservative readers of this book. But, overall it is a good read. Political Ideologies is an excellent book because of its organization and its use of examples but it falls short with a leftist bias.
The most remarkable feature of this book is its incredible organization. Most books give you a chapter number and a block of text and ask you to digest it all, with no form of organization. Baradat goes much further than this. He first outlines major and minor headings, so that if you have a specific question, say on Orthodox Marxism, you wouldn’t need to read through the whole chapter to find it. You would just skim until you found the correct section. These sections are in a well though out order, each logically progressing from the last. Most chapters first trace the origins of the political theory trough its development, implication, and its effects. Also, Baradat’s use of bolded words helps the reader easily identify key points from the rest of the writing. Instead of reading a whole paragraph, and trying to decipher what is important and what is not, you can simply refer to the bolded words to find key points. All this organization makes Political Ideologies an easy read.
The examples used in Political Ideologies makes the topics that he discusses easy to understand. Normally, a textbook will give you a long drawn out explanation of a political theory, with little examples or proof to back it up. But Baradat doesn’t follow the trend. He uses a myriad of examples and proof to support his ideas. For example, in his discussion of capitalism, Baradat first explains the various ideas about capitalism. Then, he gives examples of when these ideas were put into practice, and what happened to those affected by the new ideology. He covers reactions to capitalism too. His examples and explanations are very comprehensive, making this book easy to understand.
Despite all of the good qualities this book has, it does have a slight leftist bias. A book of this type should be non-biased and present the facts straight. But, in a few instances, Baradat leaves out conservative views or over emphases liberal views. This is first evident in the lack of conservative figures he mentions throughout the book. It is also evident when he discusses liberal views, such as Marxism. He describes the proletariat as a “wage slave” (174). This is clearly a liberal view of Marxist ideas. Despite all the good qualities this book has, it falls short on staying neutral.
Overall this is an excellent book. It is organized well, and is very comprehensive. The only fault it has is its slight liberal bias. A more neutral view would be better.
A moderately brisk read and an informative delivery on the topic, Leon Baradat's Political Ideologies served as proficient material in studying the advent of the isms. Covering the major political doctrines upwards of liberal democracies, Baradat provides worthy examples and analysis of each of the systems and their applications in the world today. However, throughout his analysis of the various political and economic philosophies, Baradat is unable to mask a degree of bias in his work.
Baradat writes of capitalism with much disdain, emphasizing the gap between rich and poor on numerous occasions. After introducing capitalism with underlying bigoted statements such as "Socialism asks people to cultivate a social consciousness; capitalism does not," and then followed by multiple cynical uses of “righteous” to describe the “robber barons” who dominated capitalist society, Baradat continues to bash capitalism smoothly, attempting to support at least one facet of the system stating, "Happily, this [social Darwinism-based] brutal phase of capitalism was abandoned with the reforms of the Progressive Era and, most important, with the New Deal” (86-88). He continually takes shots at modern conservative policies as he writes that “the passion for raw individualism… ran its course without destroying the foundations of the social and economic system of the New Deal” and again when he discusses the inherent flaws of capitalism that many misconceive as “malfunctions”, stating “It is clear, therefore, that capitalism depends on the existence of a tiny, enormously wealthy class” (88-89). Baradat seemingly catches himself and returns the focus off of the negatives of capitalism on page 91, reflecting on the power the capitalist United States has gained, but only to return directly after to rehash the ‘malicious’ machinations of the system, stating “Capitalism, in its purest form, rewards and protects only the ‘winners’” (91). Much of his description and conclusions of modern liberalism seem to bear leftist bias, including comments such as “this optimism about human character is typical of leftist ideologies”, (108).
Baradat continues his leftist commentary as he moves to discuss Anarchism, with subtle comments like “individualist anarchists, those on the right of the political spectrum, seek to limit government so that individuals can accomplish the greatest god for themselves alone” (141). He writes in his chapter on anarchism to underscore the fact that anarchism is not tied to anarchy, and seeks to clear misinterpretations in every paragraph. Baradat goes on in this section to sympathize heavily with anarchists, possibly having some ties to the party himself as he defends members who were persecuted as terrorists during the 1900’s, stating that “regrettably, his [Tolstoy] passive resistance approach was not seen… as a viable method for changing the system”, further supporting anarchism in a positive light through its association with peaceful methods (150). While it is not uncommon for any form of informative material to contain some small biases, Baradat’s work seems to heavily focus on the positives of any leftist form of theory, while ignoring those of the right- if not attacking them (such as the militia movement and individualist theories)- leading negative attention away from liberal idealology. He continues to include further evidence of the failures of right-wing theories as he writes “interestingly, with the recent decline of the labor unions and the rise of conservatism, American workers are again experiencing a reduction in real wages… as corporate profits climb” (167).
Overall, Baradat provides a very educational, albeit somewhat skewed look at the political philosophies that dominated the West during the 19th and 20th centuries. Many of these doctrines continue to evolve today, as we see what the effects of “neo-conservative” policies have had on our nation as a whole, and while many of our institutions and economic ties have ended up drawing us into self-inflicting economic losses such as wartime drains on the economy and a continual outsourcing of an ever greater array of jobs, we still remain the most powerful and influential nation in the world. But with the advent of China’s booming quasi-communist economy, who knows how philosophies may change if the United States - for mainly the first time since its creation- is succeeded in the new century as the largest economic force on earth.
In Baradat’s “Political Ideologies”, the four major political/economic systems, Capitalism, Anarchism, Marxism, and Socialism, are very carefully examined with special attention brought to the basic principles of each system. Though the descriptions of the individual philosophies are quite accurate, there are some elements that fail to resolve certain problems within the system.
The first system that Baradat addresses in his “Political Ideologies” is capitalism. Through this section of the reading, he accurately asserted that the main driving force under capitalism lies with the private sector, competitiveness, and the idea of laissez-faire. Here, the individual has the maximum capability of success, yet also has the distinct possibility of failure. Thus, Baradat asserts that capitalism is held together by an enormously wealthy minority with a large lower class. From the way that he describes the system as it is meant to be, as well as some of the interpretations used in the other forms of political ideology, it would appear that the author had somewhat of a bias against true capitalism. Though Burke is included as a balance to reinforce the idea of capitalism and that government should play a small role in economy and, the views of people like Mill and Thomas Green seemed to be more reinforced suggesting that the system of capitalism was somewhat corrupt and unjust. To be fair, Baradat does recognize early on that the system which the United States has adopted has become far more successful than any other and that we have a much higher standard of living and far greater rights as the most powerful nation in the world.
When the article addresses the first form of anarchy, social anarchy, it is entirely valid in the basic principles used to establish the system. Anarchism, as the author argues, is nothing more than the purest form of democracy. While the system does assert that the government is the greatest oppressors of the people, it also recognizes that most anarchists do not advocate total loss of structure and pure chaos as is thought by most of the West. However, when individual anarchism is brought into the situation, one can see that this is nothing more than an attempt by greedy persons who want power solely for themselves. This is especially prevalent with Max Stirner when he declares things like, “The people are dead. Up with me!” Clearly, this is the type of anarchism that leads most other people to view the system as chaotic and violent.
What was probably the most detailed political ideology in this article was Marxism. Based upon the idea of equality for all people, Marxism, or equivocally communism, adopts much of the socialist philosophy to a very great extreme. People are supposed to work together for a common good and accept the same wages as everyone else. To spawn this, a violent revolution, according to Marx, was inevitable as a result of the oppressions of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. Here, a dictator would initially take power for stability and then a second revolution would occur where the leader gave up his power to the people. While the article spends much length in describing how the intended system is supposed to work and how it is plausible in the correctly applied sense, it ignores the reality of communism in every country that has adopted it. From the system of communism, history has shown that brutal dictators are brought to power who refuse to give it up. The article never answers the question as to what has caused most of the major communist countries to partake in oppressive policies and in many cases mass murder/genocide. It is very startling as to how many people have fallen victims to communist regimes where countries commit genocide like Russia, China, and to a lesser extent (and by a lesser extent I mean 2-3 million) Vietnam. While communism may appear good on paper, history has shown that it is a dismal failure when it is applied in the real world.
The last political system that is examined in the article is socialism. One of the first points of the article was to distinguish socialism from communism in that “all communists are socialists but not all socialists are Marxists”. Along with the description of the socialist system, which was fairly accurate and informative, this chapter appeared to show a very great bias against the Western system of capitalism in favor of a much more liberal system. Suggesting that capitalism as it really is was extremely disastrous and repressive to the lower class, the article touted the systems of government support/welfare and the greatness of the New Deal. However, what this section of the reading does not address is the fact that the semi-socialist reforms made by the New Deal in 1933 were largely unsuccessful and did nothing to stop the depression. Rather than have the socialistic reforms prevail, it took World War II to bring America out of the depression. While socialists declare that the welfare state is the only natural system under democracy that can exist, most recognize the individual must have a degree of freedom in order for society to function. Thus, such institutions as the Socialist International have even adopted such a philosophy.
It is important to realize the difference between systems that appear to work on paper and those that can actually succeed in practice. In the end, one must recognize that capitalism in the west has prevailed over all other systems of political ideology that have developed in the 20th Century.
Baradat’s Political Ideologies is an extremely useful source for the study of political principles. Baradat is very informative and provides the reader with a wide range of aspects covering specific topics.
In most chapters, Baradat starts with a description and background information of each ideology and the origins and development of these ideologies. He also discusses the different forms of each ideology. Baradat includes biographies of important political figures and philosophers who in some way impacted the ideology. He identifies the historical settings in which these political figures lived and connects it to how the ideologies developed. This logical organization helped me to understand the reasons why these ideologies contain the doctrines that they do.
Baradat provides information from both American and European politics as he elaborates on each ideology. Also, he uses modern examples to provide more information about each principle. For example, in the chapter on anarchism, Baradat brings up militant civilian militias. To provide an example of modern day militant civilian militias, Baradat discusses the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings. Although the suspected bombers were not actually members of a militia, their ideas were very similar to those of militant civilian militias. By providing theses contemporary examples, I am able to better understand and connect the concepts that Baradat is explaining.
Baradat’s inclusion of so many different aspects of a political ideology definitely helps me to begin to understand the wide array of political ideologies that exist. Baradat’s writings contained a great deal of useful and interesting material which summarized the history and ideas of many major ideologies.
Throughout Baradat’s reading of his political ideologies, his tone was one that was biased to every topic. In every governing idea, he was not in favor of capitalism, anarchism, marxism, or socialism. Although, he did spend a great deal of time speaking of anarchism, he still had a negative attitude towards its’ ideas and ways. Aside from focusing on anarchism more than any other form of government, Baradat is bias in that he doesn’t give any personal input as to what he thinks or feels about each topic. Much of the reading is informative and its purpose is to teach us, as opposed to sharing Baradat’s personal beliefs on which government is the best one to live under. The information that is provided is factual and can be found in many other readings. Baradats writing makes it no different from any other. There is no personal voice that one can connect to and really look into to properly analyze Baradat’s view of these various political ideologies.
Mark Morris
AP European History
9 February 2007
Mr. Kirby
Analytical Statements on the Works of Leon P. Baradat
In class we are reading the Ideologies of Baradat, to help further acquaint ourselves with the political systems, philosophies, and ideologies of our past and present, as well as the important political leaders who introduced, influenced, or built upon these ideas. In the most recent of our readings we have learned about the four political outlooks of Capitalism, Anarchism, Marxism, and Socialism. In the chapters we have read Baradat has presented his views and commentary on the ideologies of these four political policies.
Capitalism is the first of the four political ideologies that was portrayed to us in the readings of Baradat. The chapter itself is generally well organized, first giving an overview of the ideologies, then following up with the people who came up with or influenced the philosophy. Baradat first describes how capitalism is broken up into two major variants that of liberal democracy and that democratic socialism. After this blurb we are introduced to the people that influenced capitalism, the first of which is Adam Smith. He rejected the mercantilist economic system and came up with the basic elements of capitalism. One of his most important principals was that of laissez-faire, which means hands off. It states that the government should have no say in the economy, and that competition was the driving force of the economy as well as supply and demand. After Adam Smith came men like David Ricardo, and Thomas Malthus, who were two English economists. Ricardo came up with the principal of the Iron Law of Wages which stated that companies should only pay their workers enough to survive. This would keep them coming back to work as well as maximizing profit. This however did not take into account the fluctuation in the economy in which labor supply might be in demand, and the workers could pick their jobs, and not compete for jobs in factories. Malthus came up with a principal that stated that food was not increasing at a fast enough rate and that soon there would be wide spread famine for there was too many people and not enough food. This however was also false. As we read more we learn of more people such as Herbert Spencer and his Social Darwinism, or as we know it survival of the fittest. As we learn of American Capitalism we learn that Baradat has a rather negative view towards this subject. He bombarded the reader with statements saying that the Regan administration put us into dept, and that capitalism widened the gap between the rich and the poor. However it still kept the US on its feet and we are still together as a nation. Baradat also describes how our tax system is funded by the wealthy and that’s who profits the most from capitalism. It is their money and investments that keep our economy afloat. This does not seem to please Baradat, for he does not agree with the social stratification. This brings into play a man named Edmund Burke. He was a very conservative man and father of the modern conservative philosophy. He was very Hobbsian in his views believing that people were a foolish mass. He claimed that in order to rule one needed property, ability, and high birth. Though he believed in people it was the elite that he saw fit enough to rule. He also viewed people as unequal, some were gifted others were not. To Burke a democracy were people vote in others whom they believe will rule in their best interests. Baradat’s views on Capitalism seem to be relatively positive but when it comes to American Capitalism he does not like the fragile system it has become.
The next political ideology that was discussed was anarchism. When most people come to hear anarchism they think chaos, unruliness, and disorganization. This however is not at all true. Anarchism in its most basic sense contains the most limited government. Anarchism is seen by Baradat is the misunderstood theory. Although roots can be traced back to ancient Greece it isn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century that its views began to centralize. It is anarchist belief that that government impedes society there for it must be done away with. Some anarchists believe in that basic government is acceptable, but only the most basic forms. (All government offices should be disbanded.) Also according to Baradat anarchists believe that self government is the best way for the people to live for they are free to do as they please and this will there for better society, for there is no restrictions from an oppressive government. Basically Baradat states that anarchist want to maximize human liberty. Many of the violent anarchist claims can be traced back to a man named Mikihail Bakunin. It was he who came up with many of the violent theories of how to take down society. There are two main types of anarchy social anarchy and individualist anarchy. Social anarchy is the ideology that when government is abolished people as a whole mill make great contributions. Individualist anarchy can be closely tied to Social Darwinism, in the fact that once government is gone it is up to t he individual to make the most of his time on earth. There are several theories of anarchism mentioned in our readings. One of which is Pacifism. Its founding father one could say is William Goodwin. He renounces all government institutions, whether it be government offices to government funded education, anything to do with government was wrong in his eyes. He believed that people would naturally create a harmonious society. A man named Pierre Joseph Proudhon gave Godwin’s theory political depth and an economic perspective when he came up with his Labor Theory of Value. This stated that the value of a product was equal to the amount of labor needed to produce it. Baradat seems to praise the views of anarchism and pacifism for he says nothing negative about them, and even seems to enjoy writing out the theories. His diction is more happy and joyful than in the previously mentioned capitalism. However there is the darker side on anarchy. The more violent side headed by revolutionary fanatics like Mikhail Bakunin and Kropotkin. These men especially Bakunin believed that the only way to bring about total anarchy was to bring government crashing to t he ground through violence. Bakunin thought that anything that survived must have been worth saving. Others that followed Bakunin schemed and plotted and did everything they could to overthrow government. The last form of anarchism discussed by Baradat was that of Individualist Anarchism. Here we learn of Max Sterner who viewed people as very individualistic, and responsible for no one but themselves. Baradat seems to hold anarchism in higher regard than he does capitalism. He seems to appeal more to the freedom without government and the equality for all rather than the grand mass ruled and owned by a select and privileged few. His diction says it all. In the capitalism section it seems long winded and a boring lecture, of its fault, while for anarchism it was written as though there is hope for this ideology yet.
Marxism is the third ideology discussed by Baradat. A man by the name of Karl Marx a German philosopher believed he came up with a political ideology that states that people’s ideas are conditioned by their economic environment. His theory said that in time a dictatorship will lead a revolution that once completed will hand over its power to create a classless society will evolve due to the fact that people will be more productive without government rule, and that peace and happiness will prevail. This idea according to Baradat had been around since the dawn of time and it was merely Marx who brought it to light. A branch off of his teachings is Socialism which will be discussed later. However Marx spread his teachings around Europe and was kicked out of one country after another, meeting a man in Paris named Frederich Engels, who eventually took up leadership in the communist movement. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto which stated his ideas. Marx thought what he had done was a science for the time period he lived in warranted such thinking, but by Baradat’s description of Marx he makes him out to be someone who just took a bunch of other peoples ideas and became famous for presenting them. Baradat seems to think of Marx as a man who should be accused of plagiarism. This is shown through the many side notes pointing out who said what before Marx. Marx thought of communism as the ability to free workers of compulsive toil, or working long hours just to survive. This appealed at the time for the Industrial Revolution was occurring and it was perfect for all of the nations who were industrializing. Marx’s sociological theory believed in economic determinism which stated that people’s motivation is economic. Also society was based on foundation (means of production, and relations of production) and Superstructure (art, law, religion, ideology ets.) His many other theories include Marx’s historical theory, Marx’s Theory of Work, Theory of Value, Marx’s theory of Revolution, and his political system. Marx had everything so well planned out. He stated how there was to be a revolution and people would take charge to lead it, what was to occur during the revolution, and how it would be finished, with everyone stepping down and returning power to the people. All of these ideas were all well and good but were not applied under any of the circumstances Marx intended them to so we still do not know if Marxism is actually a relevant form of government. Baradat did not seem too pleased with the idea of Communism for he wrote with more of a somber even sarcastic diction.
This brings me to the last form of government discussed by Baradat, which is Socialism. This was the vaguest and least easily describable chapter I have read from Baradat. It too me does not seem like Baradat knew what he was talking about for it certainly confused me. What I did get between the many Marxist references was that to be socialist one needed to have socialist intent. This is basically abundance for all, a utopian society. Here there is enough for everyone, and all are happy. Everyone is on his or her commune, sharing all their goods and working side by side happily. The other to parts of socialism, are ownership and production which is shared by everyone. Everyone owns everything, and everyone helps produce the products. The last part is the welfare state which means that the government gives everything and provides everything for the people. Health care, insurance, protection, and everything else are the government’s responsibility. What I also think is that Baradat believes that Marxism and socialism go hand in hand due to the gratuitous amount of references to the later throughout the reading. He however does not like either due constant criticism of both.
These readings though very learned are greatly biased by the author. Though not without value I would turn to other sources especially when researching topics like Marxism and Socialism, for Baradat’s criticisms are tend to be focused especially on these two aspects of government.
This is a dummy blog to make sure my account is finally working again.
Andrew Morris
AP European History
2/9/07
Mr. Kirby
Analysis of the Four Main Political Ideologies
The Baradat reading we were asked to do this week had four main ideologies in it. They were at one end of the spectrum anarchism to capitalism to socialism to communism. For each ideology Baradat presented his views of them and helped us better understand them as a whole.
The first ideology mentioned by Baradat was Capitalism. This appeared to be Baradat’s least favorite of all the ideologies he discussed. What he didn’t like most about Capitalism was the fact that so only a few people had control over the lives and welfare of so many. He was talking of course about the company owners who controlled the economy. They decided what products to make and their prices and could greatly change the economy if they wanted. Baradat seemed to want the people to have the power to regulate the economy and not be lorded over and controlled by just a few rich men. Baradat also mentioned the “hands off” idea of capitalism. This part of capitalism meant that the government let the business do their own thing. This meant that big companies could destroy smaller ones and the government couldn’t really regulate the businesses. Capitalism wasn’t Baradat’s favorite ideology but he made some good points in his review of it.
The next ideology Baradat mentioned was anarchism. This seemed to be his favorite ideology. He also seemed to think that it was the most misunderstood. When most people think of anarchy they think of chaos and burning and such. Baradat stresses that this is not the case. Anarchism is pure democracy. In anarchism there is no government and bureaucrats to get in the way of decision making. Many anarchists see the government an obstacle in the way of human progress. Baradat believes that anarchism has been given a bad name because of the violence that certain but not nearly all anarchists use to implement their policies. Anarchists believe that people can be motivated to work for the common good and that they will help each other and don’t need a government to watch over them. They believe that they can provide for themselves.
The next ideology Baradat talks about is communism. Baradat dislikes communism because though many of its ideas sound good but in reality are very impractical. He explains that communism is an extreme brand of socialism and that all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists. He states that communism has been around since recorded history as communal living. The communism we are familiar with today is Marx’s brand of communism. Marx believed that to make a perfect world a classless society where everyone worked towards the common good was needed. Baradat thought that this was good but not feasible because not everyone would agree to this idea. Some would be lazier than others and some would see that their jobs deserved bigger rewards than others. Also Marx’s thought to bring this society about the working class would rise up and oust the wealthy factory workers and become a society of all workers. Baradat thought many of Marx’s beliefs were paradoxical and therefore illogical but phenomenal ideas.
The final ideology that was discussed was socialism. Baradat seemed to closely associate communism and socialism. He describes socialism as an economic idea, government, social and political philosophy. Baradat describes socialism needed the government to control the major businesses and public services to the people, like communism Also the government should provide jobs for the poor and houses, as well as education and medication to all the people. However, it differs from communism because people are allowed to work for themselves and can own different possessions than their neighbors and makes more money than they do. Baradat seems to think that socialism is a more realistic form of communism. He seems to be more open toward it because it is more plausible.
Even though it seems that Baradat liked to put many of his political and social slants in his work these readings were very informative.
The political ideologies written by Baradat were comparing the differences between capitalism, anarchism, and Marxism. Although Baradat makes the effort to research in depth and touch upon individual people such as Adam Smith in the creation of capitalism, Baradat seems to lack the substance of explaining how society run by the terms of each individual ideology would go about.
In capitalism, Baradat is critical in judging Adam Smith who started capitalism with obvious references to John Locke as a liberal. John Locke’s belief that “the good of the whole is best served when each person pursues his or her own self-interest” is mirrored to Locke’s belief that human nature is best left to govern on its own and that it is up to human beings to create the best possible economic structure with little interference of the government beyond regulation and protection of “life, liberty, and property.” Despite Baradat delving in the negative aspects of capitalism through Riccardo and his Iron Law of Wages and also the Malthus report, he seemed to fail in explaining a direct relationship between the Industrial Revolution and capitalism. It seems extremely contradictory that he would categorize the two as capitalists when they both put the interest of a very small majority ahead of that of others. By doing this, it seems to hinder the idea of every man having the chance to pursue his own self interest to the greatest extent when he would instead be trapped in an endless cycle mandated by factory owners.
Anarchism seems to be an odd subject when thinking in perspective of the associated meaning of the word in comparison with the definition of anarchy. Most people think of an anarchy as a state of chaos, etc, yet to anarchist believers of the time, they instead thought of anarchism as “the purest form of democracy.” The beliefs of social anarchists in reducing or eliminating governmental institutions to allow individual people to make the greatest possible contribution to society seems rather implausibly. Although Stirner ends up suggesting the “humanity is best served when people advance or fall back in relation to their individual abilities,” it seems unrealistic when thinking about human nature. As someone that believes that government is necessary for the human species to maintain order in an otherwise state of chaos, it seems extremely unlikely that people would “advance or fall back” for the betterment of humanity when humans at heart, are true capitalists and will only think to serve themselves, even at the expense of others and beyond environmental or personal limitations. Even disregarding the true theories of anarchism, Mikhail Bakunin and the lumpenproletariats are distinguished from other ideologies in association with anarchism. Needless to say, Bakunin’s ideas would have never been successful, but it seems rather ironic that such an event had even happened and Baradat hadn’t been very biased when reviewing that of a sadistic man.
Of all the ideologies appealed to by Baradat, perhaps the most note worthy was that of Marxism. The idea of a state of equality, people working together and ruled by a government that sought maximize capital profit seemed like the best idea ever, yet it never caught on in the large industrialized countries. How is it that such a great theory didn’t sweep across the continents and glorify the nations into an era of fortune and prosperity? Baradat, although extensive in his research of what the government should until the nation could maintain stability, never quite specified the role of the government or leader afterwards. Although this could said to be inferred, this seems to be the biggest fault of Baradat which would directly relate to the corruption of communist leaders in large countries as exhibited by today’s communist countries.
The stages in which capitalism went into anarchism, and from anarchism into Marxism seems to end with the final ideology of socialism. It seems to be the optimum goal of societies today, yet at the same time, it seems unachievable. Unlike Marxism, socialism would have the people working together equally to serve the betterment of the community as a whole rather than of the government, but it seems extremely unrealistic. As proposed by Social Darwinism, human nature simply put is survival of the fittest as Baradat points out, and it seems conflicting that people would set aside their personal desires and settle for something less. Baradat also fails to point out in what areas socialism would ever be successful. While Marxism eventually develops into a theory that could be forced upon the people despite their general will, socialism seems too forgiving in the sense that Social Darwinism is an inevitable factor and will always affect the ideologies any perfect democracy that all nations alike, past or present, strive to achieve. To strive to achieve this seems to be the fault of the nations in trying to achieve something that is simply intangible.
Baradat's Political Ideologies was easy to read compared to past readings and was presented in an organized fashion. Of the three main sections; capitalism, anarchism, and Marxism, I found anarchism to be the most interesting. Those people, such as Emma Goldman and William Godwin, had the most impact on the way I read the article. William Godwin’s ideas as the founder of modern anarchism had a great impact on the people of his time. He spread the ideas of self-government and individualism. Godwin of course was not alone in his ideals for many such as Rousseau and other leftists shared in his thoughts. Emma Goldman, in the same mind set as Godwin, advocated radical causes as well as women’s rights. Goldman seemed to be the most interesting person to read about simply because of her passion for politics and her individual ideals. Of course Baradat would not agree with me as far as which of the three ideals, capitalism, anarchism, or Marxism, is the most correct for he seems to be carrying a bias through the entire packet leaning towards socialism. In the last section of Marxism Baradat describes just how intertwined the ideas of socialism and Marxism are thereby excluding capitalism and anarchism. It is clear that Baradat has a certain dislike for capitalism and that would be understandable coming from one who favors socialism/Marxism. Overall I thought this packet gave out just the right amount of information so that the readers would be slightly bias in the authors favor, but the actual facts are strong enough to allow readers to create their own opinions about capitalism, anarchism, and socialism.
Post a Comment