Holycrosshistory



Holy Cross High SchoolHigher PoliticsEssay Plan for Question 2: To what extent are the key features of political ideologies different? You should refer to two political ideologies and make reference to the ideas of relevant theorists.?Plan Intro: Bit of background, acknowledge similarities and differences, signpostPara 1: Background to liberalism, background to socialism, similarities, differences, overall judgement over how different they arePara 2: Equality, liberal views, socialist views, similarities, differences, overall judgementPara 3: Key principles; liberal views, socialist views, similarities, differences, overallPara 4: Role of the state: Liberal views, socialist views, similarities, differences, overall.Conclusion: In conclusion, on one hand, on the other hand, overall judgement on how different they are, reasonsPara 1: BackgroundLiberalism: John Locke supported the Parliamentarians during the War of The Three Kingdoms and supported the Glorious Revolution of 1688 ? and he contributed to the development of Liberal principles. Liberalism was born out of the end of feudalism and the development of a free market economy and the growth of a middle class.Socialism: Although socialist ideas were born during the French Revolution in 1789, the socialist movement arguably really began to grow in the mid nineteenth century, through the writings of Karl Marx. It was a response to the increasingly free market capitalism that the Industrial Revolution had born. Marx believed that ‘feudal property had been abolished in favour of bourgeois property’, and that the ideas of freedom born from the French Revolution could not be realised until the working class became unchained.Analysis: While both ideologies consider themselves progressive to an extent, it may be argued that socialism is more progressive than liberalism, as liberalism was an attempt to progress from the Feudal system of lordship and kingship towards individual freedom, socialism attempts to progress even beyond this, by bring society together into collectivism.Para 2: Attitudes to Equality:Liberalism: Equality – ‘born equal’ ? liberals have a commitment to equal rights especially before the law and in politics, favour equality of opportunity – meritocracy – rather than equality of outcome.Example: The Liberal Democrats, during their time in the coalition in the UK between 2010 and 2015, favoured state funded education because they felt it protected freedom of opportunity. Liberals were the group who first advocated the idea of ‘one person one vote’, which spurred the growth of democracy in the twentieth century.Socialism: Social equality – a central value of socialism – equality of outcome (not opportunity) – this is the basis for the exercise of legal and political rights.Example: People in socialist East Germany during the Cold War were given the guarantee of a job, as well as substantial wage equality. For liberals, this would have lessened the motivation of people to achieve what they could but for the socialist government, it was important for equality as it reduced the material inequality that exists in many countries today.Analysis: While both systems are similar in that they both believe in some form of equality, there are differences in the ends to this equality. Both socialists and liberals believe in equality of opportunity, but for liberals, this is where equality ends. For socialists, equality of outcome is the real aspiration. Liberals would argue that as long as there is an equal platform for people to achieve something, the onus is on the individual to achieve what they can. In this sense, it may be argued that socialism goes further than liberalism in terms of equality. Para 3: Key PrinciplesLiberalism: Freedom: Great importance given to individual freedom – citizens should be free to pursue their own interests. Classical liberalism focuses on ‘negative freedom’ – the state should not take actions which violate or constrain individual freedoms. People should be unhindered in choosing what is best for them. Modern liberalism focuses on ‘positive freedom’ – the state should act to maximise opportunities for individuals to have the freedom to develop their talents and energies – so barriers such as poverty, illiteracy, disease should be removed to allow individuals to be empowered. Toleration: John Locke believed everyone should be tolerates (apart from catholics). In contrast, when Lenin tried to implement socialism in Russia, he saw anyone who opposed the regime as an enemy, and used this to justify brutal terror. Toleration ? to think, act and speak (within some limits). Locke advocated religious toleration for all except Roman Catholics. Toleration leads to social enrichment ? pluralism is healthy: natural balance and harmony – no such thing as irreconcilable difference. Individualism: Believed that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests and that humans are born with natural rights – life, liberty and property.Example: Free market capitalism is an example of individualism. Company owners have become owners because of their hard work and talents, especially if freedom of opportunity was provided (through state education for example); therefore they should be free to reap the rewards of their talents.Winston Churchill said of the Liberal Reforms: ‘when you see a man drowning, you do not jump into the sea and swim for him. Instead, you throw him a rope so he may help himself swim’ (Liberal reforms an example of positive freedom).Socialism: Class: Karl Marx – significant work – the Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels 1848) Marx saw society as being divided between 2 groups – the Bourgeoisie (the ruling class who own the means of production) and the Proletariat (the working class). Defined the relationship between these 2 groups as one of exploitation. However, the exploitative relations within capitalism; capitalists v workers will force workers to co-operate together to overthrow the capitalists.Co-operation: Defined the relationship between these 2 groups as one of exploitation. However, the exploitative relations within capitalism; capitalists v workers will force workers to co-operate together to overthrow the capitalists. This co-operation will lead to the establishment of collective values. People will not see themselves as individuals, but as part of a community, or human beings, working in the common interest. Utopian socialists see capitalism as evil, scientific socialists see it as a necessary stage on the route to socialism. Also, revolutionaryExample: The people who actually produce materials in a (car) factory (or any other industrial job are the workers. For Marx, it was unfair that this class of people were wage slaves while the boss (bourgeoisie), takes profits at a higher price. For Marx, this was theft.Analysis: While liberals saw free market capitalism as justified as long as freedom of opportunity exists, socialists see this as unfair as it inevitably leads to inequality, rich and poor. A socialist view of the world today would be that the massive increasing wealth gaps between rich and poor are inevitable when economies adopt liberal principles. Since liberals believe in individualism over collectivism, they support the rights of individuals to make what they can from life. For liberals, equality of outcome is unfair and unjust because it treats unalike individuals alike. They think economic inequality is actually a positive thing, as it provides an incentive for effort, which will be rewarded. Liberals want people to be given the CHANCE for economic success, while socialists actually take steps to make sure everyone achieves the same economic success.One area of agreement might be in relation to social democracy, which many ‘evoluationary’ socialists, as well as modern liberals accept. The UK parliament might be a good example of this in action, both members of Liberal Democratic Party as well as socialists in the Labour Party are happy to use the parliament as the vehicle for their respective policies.Utopian Socialists v Scientific socialists?Paragraph 4: : Role of the StateLiberalism: Consent, Constitutionalism willing agreement – ‘consent of the governed’ aware of dangers of tyranny ? developed into a need for democracy and representation including a bill of rights and written constitution. Locke believed that although men were born free, they entered into a ‘social contract’ with government, that they gave up some of their human rights in order that the state organises society. Social Contract has two sets of obligations:1. People agree to give up some of their natural rights and obey laws in exchange for government organising society2. The government is obliged to govern well and for the general good in exchange for people putting their trust in the government3. The government is a necessary evilModern liberalism believes in limited state intervention in order to provide equality of opportunity. Classical liberalism puts an emphasis on meritocracy (you need to earn your way in life without the help from the state)Example: Classical Liberalism- Laissez Faire in Europe in the nineteenth century, the government don’t intervene in the lives of people- role limited to defence and not much else. Modern Liberalism: Liberal Reforms, 1906-1914 (helping those most in need ‘young (school meals), Old (Pensions), Sick (health insurance), Unemployed (benefits), or even the Beveridge Report and tackling of the 5 giants (Taking the earlier reforms further, by tackling want, disease, idleness, ignorance and squalor) to provide equality of opportunity.Separation of powers in the USA is a good example of limited government (USA based upon the liberal model of government). Federalism is the same.Any democracy could in theory be described as having liberal ideas behind it as they require consent, which was at the heart of the social contract.Socialism: Marx believed that the state; the civil service, the police, army and royal family in a capitalist society served the interests of the capitalists or the ruling class. The state only exists to protect the capitalist class.“The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”The Communist Manifesto 1848As such, it had to be over thrown by the working class by revolution. Marx believed that once communism was established, there would be no need for a state.There would be equality so there would be no need for people to steal or murder. So Marx actually saw no need for a state at all.Example: Unfortunately for socialists, no nation has truly made the journey to stateless socialism (communism). Ironically, the states of some of the socialist states of the twentieth century tended to be at least as powerful, if not moreso, than many capitalist countries (USSR). A lot of this was to do with Lenin. Lenin had the practical task of putting Marx’s ideas into practice, following the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917.His ideas about the state were written in his pamphlet “The State and Revolution” (1917)Lenin argued that in an underdeveloped country such as Russia, the capitalist class would remain a threat even after a successful socialist revolution.As a result, he advocated the repression of those elements of the capitalist class that took up arms against the new soviet government, writing that as long as classes existed, a state would need to exist to exercise the democratic rule of one class (in his view, the working class) over the other (the capitalist class)"We do not at all disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as an aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, temporary use must be made of the instruments, means and methods of the state power against the exploiters, just as the dictatorship of the oppressed class is temporarily necessary for the annihilation of classes”.Only once communism was established on a world scale could Marx’s vision of a stateless society come about.In the meantime, a state would be required in Russia to protect the new Communist Government from hostile capitalist forces. (But they never got there- The Soviet State was huge even until the latter half of the twentieth century, well after the revolution had been won.Analysis: There are differences firstly between the attitudes to the state between different types of liberals. Modern liberals prefer a mixed economy to free market capitalism, while classic liberals see the free market as central to individual freedom. Examples of this are the state involvement in modern liberal democracies such as the UK and USA, both of whom have adopted Keynesian approaches to their economies at times in recent history. Liberals also have a complicated relationship with democracy. One one hand, liberalism is compatible with democracy because it implies consent and legitimacy, however democracy is by its nature a collectivist ide and so perhaps is more appropriate to socialism than liberalism. Also, democracy can at times limit freedom and growth, which liberals are against (check page 14 for good analysis). Liberalism has also had an imfluence, ironically, on the development of socialism. New Labour’s constitutional reforms, for example giving devolution to Scotland, links well with the liberal belief of decentralisation.Paragraph 5: Human NatureLiberalism: Individualism ? core principles of liberalism ? a belief in the supreme importance of the human individual as opposed to any social group. Rationalism: Liberalism was a product of the enlightenment, which rejected earlier beliefs that humans were governed by instinct, emption and prejudice. Instead, we are creatures of logic. People should be able to resolve disagreements through peaceful discussion and debate without violence.Freedom: Individuals should make their own decisions about how they live; ‘life, liberty and property’ (John Locke) , part of three natural rights.Example: It was liberal thought that founded the post war League of Nations which has become the UN, as an attempt to get nations to promote world through diplomacy rather than violence (Rationalism).Socialism: Community – the core of socialism is the importance of community – human beings are social creatures and have a common humanity. Fraternity or comradeship – socialists prefer co-operation to competition and collectivism over individualism. Co-operation enables people to harness their collective energies – competition leads to individuals against individuals, may breed resentment, conflict. Socialism has the capacity to create perfect human beings. Material benefits should be distributed on the basis of need rather than merit or work. Karl Marx’s ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’ This requires people to be motivated by moral incentives rather than material ones. Socialism analyses society in terms of the ownership of the means of production, distribution of income or wealth and social class is significant in this. Socialism is usually associated with the interests of the oppressed and exploited class and that class is the agent of change, even social revolution. Common ownership – a feature with some socialists seeing it as an end of socialism itself, others as a means of generating broader equality. A means of harnessing material resources for the common good. Private property promotes social division and selfishness. Example: The nationalisation of any industry, for example the NHS in Britain is a socialist policy because it takes away ownership of the industry from the individual and puts it in the ownership of a collective public (the same with railways or any other industry). Tony Blair was accused of betraying Labour’s socialist principles after his election victory in 1997 when the PPP initiative privatised some parts of the NHS because it enabled private companies to profit from some areas of healthcare provision like cleaning.Analysis: While liberals see human beings as individuals, socialists disagree that this is natural. Instead, they believe that humans work most ethically and efficiently in collective social groups. (perhaps make the argument that the Cold War perhaps backed up the liberal view of human nature, as the liberal economies of USA outperformed the planned, socialist economy of USSR?ConclusionIn conclusion, there are both similarities and differences between liberalism and socialism. They are similar in the sense that…., …. And ….. However, on the other hand there are also differences on …., ….. and ……. Overall, it might be claimed that socialism goes further than liberalism because… ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download