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.