Brave New World

In this book i saw many similarities to V but in different contexts. I saw this book to be more similar to the book 1984. In V, people have less freedom in general but they are still able to keep their thoughts and many people have hidden beliefs and possessions from the government. In BNW its more that the government controls the people through drugging the population. It seems that all of the people are basically vegetables. It seems somewhat like the movie pleasant ville. At the same time all of these people are actually very free, but not mentally. There is no diverse thought or expression. People are all the same and there is no creative ideas. Peoples thoughts are just suppressed, while in V people must suppress their own thoughts for their own protection from their government.

V for Vendetta Part 1

I have never seen this movie before so it has been interesting. Living in a world like this seems so far out there but it is scary at the same time that societies like this have thrives only a little more that 50 years ago. It made me think about the propaganda exposition at the gallery, mainly because of the extreme nationalist messages that were being sent, and also the distortion of all the news to keep the thinking of the population in line. I also thought it was interesting how they manipulated the media stories, but at the same time controlled all of the televisions in the whole country, to make sure people watch them. It makes you really think about how people might have their thoughts differ from their actions in fear of what might happen. The idea seems so far out there because of how much freedom we have today. Living in a country like that seems like it never would actually exist, and only reside in movies, but this is not the case.

Mein Kampf Readigs

In the two section of Mein Kampf we read talk mainly about the superior race and how it is being held back. This reading was someone disturbing but also very interest. Just how someone can tie the existence of the jewish faith and its followers to the thing that is holding back the "superior race." He started off Nation and the Race talking aout how naturally, cats with mate with cats, dogs with dogs, and so on. These things are true to nature, but then he goes into a superior person mating with an inferior person is cruel to the offspring, and the racially pure mustg refrain from doing so. After this, he defines jews as the lesser race, saying that they are plauging the human race, and holding back their true potential. I do not agree with this, i think that in the human race there is no superior or inferior separations, we are all one race and when we cross between eachother we are sharing our cultures, ideas, and ways of life. I look at his readings and i see extreme nationalism, where he is always pushing for the advancement of the Aryan race, but there is never cooperation between other countries, there is no national community in which each country will benefit. In his eyes, the country will benefit by "purifying" the nation and making it supirior, and by controlling this pure race, the state will become superior to all others. I do not agree with his ideas, but it is still very interesting that he was able to captivate so many people and achieve so much with this radical(in our eyes) idea.

This is What Democracy Looks Like

I liked this video, it really showed a different perspective than what we often see from mainstream media. I like how it reinforced the idea that people will always come together for whatever reason, be it to get their daily bread or to stand up for a cause. Like someone said in the movie, the people who exploit the earths resources are the same people who exploit human resources, so they were made for each other. I agree with what someone said in the video, that people have the right of assembly and protest, until you actually begin to make a change. which at what point the government breaches people's rights to shut down any impending revolution. It seems sad that something like this happens, because in reality we are trapped, we may not see i directly. But any direct demand for change will not come easily. I think that the people in the video give hope to an idea for anarchism or socialism, because it shows collaboration and cooperation for a cause. But the only problem is these are the people fighting for the cause they care about, this is not the entire population, which would need to be involved in a socialist or anarchist society, which makes me a little more skeptical about all people working together

I thin that the perspective of this reading is very interesting. It makes many assumptions about huan nature that are contradictory with other ideologies. Fvor example, he says that in the end humans cooperating for the greater good of the community will be beneficial for everyone. This is contradicted by some ideas others including Hobbes, who think that people are lzy and untrustworthy and without any structure nothing will be accomplished. The other assumptions that are made in this reading are that humans will always be overcome by greed. I do think that this is very much true about human nature but there are many exceptions.

Capitalism he says is the main enemy of Socialism. He says that capitalism is leading to the destruction of society and the environment, and that the socialist reforms that can be made will help restrain the devestation brought on by capitalism which is fed by human greed.

I agree with some of his points, that our capitalist society is leading to the destruction of our environment, but i also think that capitalism in our society is adjusting to the retraints of the environment, mainly by limitations of our government, and not by choice. I disagree on the other hand, with the points he makes about human nature. That for socialism to work people will need to keep to it and keep the faith. I think that in our society today, people are far too often too comfortable with where they are at, and will often takethe easy way out to save themelves some trouble. I do think that humans still cooperate for the greater good, but only to a certain point.

Bernstein vs. Luxemburg

I think that both of these writiers have very good points, but i dont think either is more right or wrong than the other.

With bernstein, i agree with the ideas he has about having socialism be more practical. He says that it cannot be as drastic as it is thought out to be, and that there are certain adaptations that must be made in order to sustain itself.

"And as I am firmly convinced that important periods in the development of nations cannot be leapt over I lay the greatest value on the next tasks of social democracy, on the struggle for the political rights of the working man, on the political activity of working men in town and country for the interests of their class, as well as on the work of the industrial organisation of the workers."

Bernstein talks about how there are certain needs from a government to hlp secure its citizens. But at the same time he says that violent revolution is neccesary to establish new order. Which is why he is critisized by Luxemburg as a revolutionist rather than a socialist

With Luxemburg, a good portion of the essay is spent critisizing Berstein and his ideas about ocialism, how they are contradictory. I think that there are points made about Bernstein being controdictory, but i believe that Bernsteins ideas seem to be more open minded into how to make socialism work rather than radical nonsense

Heywood on Socialism

Socialism is the collabvorative ideology. Unlike other ideologies, socialism thrives on the idea that humans are social creatures that will collaberate and interact to solve societies problems. There is no individual progress made for the community. As summarized in the second section of the reading, Humans are commraddes, bothers and sisters bound together by the bonds of humanity. Socialist ideas believe in human growth and potential over a lifetime. There is no lmit to what one can do, they side with nurture rather than nature.

The Five main ideas under socialism are Community, Co-operation, Social Class, Equality, and Common Ownership

The ideas about community is that is must be valued, that people need to co-esist and ineract in order to survive. Co-operation's main point is that there needs to be collaberation rather than competition in order for all member of a society to work. Socialists believe that there is a need for social class, but the meaning of social class has been disputed between socialists. Socialists believe that equality is not achieved through belief, they recognize that all people are not created equally, equality is achieved by socialism because it allows all people to achieve to their potential, there is no oppression. Common ownership really sets socialism appart for other ideologies, person property is a way to create wealth and define ones self in other ideologies. But wealth is a from of social separation and creates inequality. Socialism is functioning idea but when applied it has yet to been shown that it works. It is still evolving and growing as we have seen over the past few centuries. So there is room to adapts and accomidate.

Kirk and Heywood on Conservatism

The ideas of consevatism that we see today have the same ideas as traditional conservatism, but they are not as upfront. People tend to be more socially conservative than political. Religious and family values are highly treasured. What we have found out from the readings from both Kirk and Heywood is that conservatise goes beyond an ideology, but into a way of life. Conservatism is merely a way to avoid conflict. The dangerous thought of change brought up by liberalism can bring up revolution and tyrany. But with conservatism the risk is diminished, keeping potential conflicts out of sight. Conbservatives to not reject change, but they are against drastic change. Things come with time and people cannot force it, or else revolution can occur

Coulson & Covaleskie

Coulson advocates for a type of education that could be seen as the next step up from what we have today in order to help compensate for todays problems. Today we have underfunded public schools in poor areas because people cannot afford to pay the high taxes in areas with good schools. Coulsons idea is to make all schools private. So that they can cate to people beliefs, and that all schools can be properly funded. There would be governemnt vouchers for the people who couldnt afford them, and have people that can afford it, pay for it to fund the school.

Covaleskie argues against Coulson saying that the prvitization of schools would further the socio-economic divide that we see today. People recieving vouchers would not necissarily be accepted into every school, and could make a higher education even more of a status symbol than it is today. His solution involve allowing the government to maintain their work because they are working for the greater good of the people of the nation

I agree with Covaleskie when he goes against Coulsons ideas. I think that if all education was privitized it would become much more selective than it is toda, and increase the gap. Today we have college already at a selective and competative state because of its prices and standards. Creating this for all levels of education would further this same effect. I think that the answer to equalizing public education is not in making it independent. I think it needs more governemnt support and programs.

Green & Dewey

As i read the excerpt by Green i really started to think about the inner conflicts that arise from ideologies. That the society as a whole is always going to be interdependent on eachother, and that no matter what if one person in a community is affected, everyone is. The conflict of the ideology came up with me when i read about all of this connected to freedom. That we are only free from nature if we give up some of our freedom to a governemnt. This was interesting to me. The point he made when he asking the question, Wouldall of the rules and regulations we have through legislation come about naturally without legislation? was a very good point. This idea relates back to hobbes, saying that without rule, society would be barbaric. But there is also the conflicting idea coming from Adam Smith that people naturally benefit together for the greater good. This reading really got me going onto the inner conflicts of ideologies.

The three observations that Dewey made were that: 1) Liberty is Power, not just an idea. 2) The power of liberty can only be legitimized if it can be related. and 3) Liberty is way of setting restraint and controls at a time. he had some points that sort of went against Green's. One of them was that you do not have to sacrifice liberty in order to recieve social control. While one f greens main points was that it was necessary. I liked Deweys last point about social control, that we do have it, but it is in the hands of those who have economic power, which leads to the deprivation of others liberties, and causes other social issues. This idea made me think about how we are given all of these freedoms in our society today, but so many other things control our community, locally and nationally.

How we work together

Smiths main ideas about labor are pretty simple. he talks about the productivity of a pin making manufacturer. In this example he talks about how much more is achieved through coopeation rather than individual work. people will make exponentially more pins tan ones who work alone. These ideas that smith has can apply to anything that we see even in our own lives. If we work together we will acomplish more than if we work on our own. people will always be able to come together and acomplish more.

As for the question of motivation to cooperate and interdependence. people have always know that things have been more productive together. People will unify to accomplish things because they know it will be easier. Cooperation away leads to accomplishment. and all people across the world have known this theory.

People in our society do depend on eachother constantly, which goes both ways. We see people work off of eachother, working well together. But we also see projects collapse because people become too dependent on eachother. There are advances and drawbacks to both. People work as a unit, when all togehter it is productive, but without one part things can crumble

9/23-March of the Flag & Platform of the American...

I thought it was interesting how the idea of imperialism can relate to Hobbes' ideas. That people are better off being governed without consent. That they are doing them a favor, kond of how hobbes thought that people without absolutle rule cannot function. The justification for imperialism in the march of the flag seems to be rather similar to the justification of slavery. That giving slaves a place to stay and food is something they would be incapable of having otherwise. That they are being done a favor. As for the Anti Imperialist League, i thought Lincoln quote was a good counter:

"no man is good enough to govern another man without
that other's consent. When the white man governs himself, that is self-government, but when he
governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government-that is
despotism."

the ideas that the league hold true to are those of the constitution. They believe that all men are created equal and under no circumstances can that be overruled.

Declaration of Womens Rights

From the start i knew that this was going to be similar to Douglass's just based off of what Prof. Dietz said on webct. I thought of this one to be more critical of what was happening with human rights and the nation. That douglass praised the accomplihmets of the nation, while still explaining the faults of it. But while this declaration ponted out many cases where our nation has been unjust and unfair to women, and how hypocritical we are while we do it. I think its interesting that in the 24 years that the two speeches have between them, the same points are still involved and the same arguement is being made on a different front. The articles of impeachment give examples to what is controvercial about each sectio of the country, and how each part is hypocritical. In the final section the arguement that women have always hadthe same inteests as men, that they havent been sitting quietly off to the side. And if the injustice pursues, the country will fail