Blog post due at 11:55pm on Feb. 10 and comment due at 11:55pm on Feb. 13.
Political Ideology
- In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
- Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
- Why is Marxist theory called utopia?
- How were Marx’s ideas developed by succeeding generations?
- What are the different approaches used by democratic socialism and communism to pursue for equality?
'Why is Marxist theory called Utopia?'
ReplyDeleteThis label is from Sir Thomas More's book Utopia, published in 1516. Utopian socialists believed that capitalism is unstable and exploitative, that the workers should collectively own all factories, farms, and other productive enterprises. Societies based on these principles were established in the UK and later in parts of the US, but these did not thrive. Karl Marx took this ideology and expanded it to include political theory, philosophy, economics, etc. Like the utopian socialists, he believed that the free-enterprise system should be abolished.
In Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto, they explain how the capitalists would eliminate all of their competition eventually. They would monopolize the economy to such a degree that the workers, or proletariat, would have to revolt and overcome these bourgeoisie. Social classes and private property would no longer exist. Liberated from the free-market system and its oppression of working for others, the proletariat would find true freedom and be allowed to grow and develop as they wished.
Marx is definitely has some great points in believing that capitalism would end competition but does anyone believe we will ever get to this point? The way our money hungry society is built today makes competition an ever growing commodity and therefore drives the owners of production to compete for even more capital. The bourgeoisie will always own the means of production and therefore the proletariat or those who do not own the means of production will always be stagnant,
DeleteTimeka I agree. The proletariat or those who do not own the means of production will continue to be stagnant and our society will continue to be comfortable and accept a stable economy. In order for stagnation to decrease, a campaign of global equalism must take place for all working class citizens
DeleteTimeka - what do you think about the growing co-op movement? I agree that the bourgeoisie control the means of production — and when the poorest half of the globe control only about 0.8 percent of the total global wealth, the same as the top .000001 percent of the global population, it is hard to argue that point. At the same time, there are alternative models, including small scale production and co-ops that actually put the means of the production into the hands of the workers without the government getting involved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative). I think it is possible - perhaps not likely, and certainly not soon — but definitely possible to have the means of production controlled by the proletariat.
DeleteShould religion and politics be kept strictly separate? Or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteReligion and politics are two important topics that are very personal and is discussed all over the world. Religion speaks of our life, and morals. Politics speaks of government, community, and how society should be. When these two topics mix, there are different opinions. If you look at it, politics are a part of our life, and religion is in our communities. Our values and morals go along with our religious beliefs, and the political government runs our country. I feel that a person should have a choice when it comes to what they want to believe in whether it's religion, politics, or both, as long as they remain true to themselves and keep their and quality of life.
While I agree that politics and religion are very personal and are discussed all over the world; I disagree that they should be separate. The two points you made, in my opinion, are the exact reasons why they should not be kept separate. These two hot button topics accomplish similar goals:they bring people together as well as divide them. Wars are and have been fought over both; as well as, being responsible in bring people/countries/communities/etc together.
DeleteReligion and politics should be kept strictly separate. Religion has many variations, understandings and translations attempting to draw political conclusions and decisions based in religion is nearly impossible and would be highly provocative. Politics should not be overshadowed by religious goals as religious goals often do not have the masses in their best interest whereas politics seeks to draw support of the majority. In my opinion, the two are at odds.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think that it is true, at any point in time you can find some religion somewhere at odds with a political system in power, I think it is also true that you can draw parallels between the two. Both seek to influence the majority, as you say. Both have a plan for dealing with non-conformists, both have a plan to assist those in need. For the most part, both are about community and caring for one another. Both have leaders, whether it be one or many, to represent the masses. In short, I tend to agree with the viewpoint that politics is merely secular religion.
ReplyDeleteMelissa, I find your last sentence the most thought provoking on the subject of religion and politics, You are right that both institutions contain ideologies, but to infer that a political ideology is religion, seems to cross a boundary of definitions,
DeleteIn social studies, a political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths, or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order.
While religion as: "... a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of
thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and traditions
Yes they are both ideologies but not the same. Religion seeks to find individual peace and contentment by finding a higher power....while politics and government seek to find a common good for the masses.
Politics and government should separate its institutional decisions for the community and not interfere with the personal choices of religion and spiritual ideologies.
ReplyDeleteHi, when you say that politics and government should separate its decisions for the community and not impose or interfere with religion do you think that is realistically possible? It seems as though to me that religion is used so frequently to either justify or condemn someone's actions or beliefs. There has to be some kind of religious "protection" against groups that cant govern themselves accordingly under one nation. I hope this makes since.
DeleteThe attempts by Stalin's dictatorship in Russia and Mao's communism in China, to eliminate religion by force failed achieve their goals. Mao claimed that religion was poison that produced fear and backward thinking. Iran's theocracy of forced Islam, often punishes those who do not comply with arrests, exile, or sometimes execution in extreme cases. Government simply can not control the mind and thoughts of its' citizens. This issue is resolved by the difference between the good of community versus the personal desires of individuals.
ReplyDelete2.) Should religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteIt is most definitely impossible to completely separate religion and politics, although the majority people agree the two should in fact be separate. Living in the United States we are reminded on a regular basis that we live in a Christian nation. For example, in school students stand and Pledge Allegiance to America's flag, often times mindlessly rehearsing the words without a second thought; not consciously realizing the association they're making between America and God ("one nation under God"). However, the fact of the matter is, religion has no place in politics because religion is a personal matter of faith, believing there is some greater life form than those in our physical universe, whereas political governing bodies were established to regulate society for the greater good of it's inhabitance.
Jacob, Although it;s rarely successfully done, I am not sure its "definitely impossible" to separate religion and politics as you outline. I think society has to understand the pitfalls of intertwining the two, and in turn create policies to separate the two through laws. I also would question why you call it a Christian nation...why do references to God have to always be Christian? Most popular modern religions have at least one God. By the way I am Christian, so nothing personal, I like the idea, just making a point.
DeleteDave, I disagree to some extent that the enacting of laws is a protection against religious values playing a major role in government policy. I point to the fight for LGBT rights in Alabama and other states as a prime example. The laws enacted to promote "religious freedom" are just a back door way to promote and impose the values of one group on another. The right to wed your partner is one granted by the government, with the accompanying benefits, but through morality power plays, a whole segment of the population is discriminated against. Furthermore, judges, who are tasked with upholding the law are refusing the orders of the higher courts in denying licences to same sex couples, in the name of religious values,
DeleteThe struggle between the religious majority and secular governments are an ongoing and historical problem. Northern Ireland,and the Middle East are just two of the many struggles that have their roots in religion
What are the different approaches used by democratic socialism and communism to pursue for equality?
ReplyDeleteCommunism uses strict government controls over all facets of the economy in order to create a level playing field among the working class. Ownership of industry, the rights of the individual and upward economic mobility are all in the hands of the state.
In the Social Democracy form of government, equality is achieved by creating a strong safety net in which the essential services are a benefit granted by the government and paid for based on a progressive form of taxation. Essential services such as the transportation network are usually nationalized (state owned) thus lessening the chance that a monopoly can be formed. The strong regulation of the economy gives way however, when it comes to privately owned businesses and ownership. This affords the citizens a chance for upward economic ability through entrepreneurship, while lessening the chance that they become a drag on society.
Social Democracy avoids one of the major pitfalls that hinders Communism, in that the workers have a vested interest in trying to succeed. In the Communistic society, there is no incentive for the worker to produce at their peak output or concern themselves with quality in terms produced goods.
I think that religion and politics should be kept separately as much as possible, meaning that the church should have no influence on politics. Religion is a personal choice and enforcing it on any level is not only ethically wrong, but it violates one of our basic freedom right, the freedom of thinking. Not to mention that it assumes that one religion is superior to another. I think that it is not a problem is a country’s legislative system is based on religiously originated principles, but in an ideal world this should be the highest level of contribution between church and state. I would also note that it is economically beneficial for a country to attract the best businessmen and investors not having religion as a limiting factor.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that governing a country with a religion base is way easier, because in that case the ideology itself is given for the politician, and most people tend to vote for the ideology rather than the exact measures planned to be taken in certain issues. It is also easy to support political ideas with ideas from religion. I don’t think it is necessarily wrong, since politicians are trying to convince citizens using every power they have in order to get their votes, and addressing one’s faith can be a successful way of doing so.
Marxism is thought of as an utopia because it emphasizes the importance of the working class and emphasizes the importance of having a classless society. It sheds light on economic systems, and how they pertain directly to political power. Marx believed that capitalism filters most of the power into the top tier of wealth, which in turn, gives the top tier of wealth most of the control. If wealth was evenly distributed, then in theory the society would be utopian because, according to Marx, there would be no struggle for power. Some people see communist countries as being pure Marxist societies, and those that have fallen imply to many people that communism is an impossible system, unable to live up to its ideals. Utopian societies are also thought of as impossible to live up to, connecting the idea of Marxism and utopias as equivalent.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the separation of church and state, I do think it is difficult, but not impossible to separate the two. Our constitution is supposed to protect us from the two becoming too intertwined and has successfully combatted doing so many times. However, it is imperfect, and lobbying on the behalf of religious organizations as well as countries whose separation is more muddled. In addition, many politicians run campaigns that appeal to religious bases that mobilize large amounts of people and that can influence elections as well as policy.
ReplyDeleteIf we accept Heywood's definition of ideology, that is, "a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides the basis for organized political action," with the specific requirements that it have a worldview, a vision of a good society, and a set of political actions for how to get there, then it seems difficult to argue that all religions are political. It is equally difficult to argue that most aren't. You can argue about the definition of religion, but if we look at organized religion specifically, there are immediate examples of faiths which do not fall into this category. Strict orthodox Judaism, for example, or Jehovah's witnesses, have a world view and an image of an ideal society. But — and this is key — they do not use political means to achieve it. Rather they remove themselves from political society to create their ideal. Depending on definitions of politics, you could argue that they practice politics within their group. But it is not politics which effect anyone outside of their organization, which is what most ideologies want to do. Marxist/Leninist and Fascism are not concerned with creating an ideal world only for there followers, otherwise there would be no death camps. Liberalism is so dedicated to personal choice that, at least in this country, the right to hold illiberal political views (such as Nazism) is defended. Therefore, not all religions are ideologies. Then again, many religions — not only fundamentalists in Islam, but also certain groups in the Catholic church, Zionists in certain branches of Judaism, and the quite powerful Hindu nationalists in India all fit Heywood's bill of ideology to the letter.
ReplyDeleteShould religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that impossible?
ReplyDeleteIt would be extremely difficult to have total separation of politics and religion, due to most individuals have a belief in some sort of "Higher Power." In the US we have blurred the lines in regard to Church and State. When we, as a country, follow elections one of the aspects of candidates that we pay attention to is their religious affiliation. We, as a country, want our representatives of have Christian values which equates wholesome ethics. To us it shows a strong moral compass and air of being trustworthy. Seeing as how politics can sometimes seen cold and corrupt viewing the religious/spiritual of its participants makes them appear more relatable. Religion plays a strong role in the legislation as well. Our basic rights as citizens hold close ties to religious laws. We have freedom of religion, laws against murder, stealing, as well as bearing false witness; arguable taken straight from the Bible. The debates over abortion and gay marriage hold valid arguments of based on the Bible teachings as well as individual rights. Our pledge of allegiance, national anthem, our currency, and even most of our national land marks are tied to religion affiliations. To remove spirituality from politics would remove the heart of our government.
While I agree with much of your interpenetration of our modern government and its connection to religion, I also question if these are positive truths or negative truths. Would it not be better and more in line with the teachings of our Constitution to focus more upon these values as good human values rather than good christian values? This nation is based so much on diversity that to focus only upon values that appear in a christian conciseness alienates huge populations. Additionally many of these same beliefs also appear in other faiths. Perhaps the answer lies in remembering that Christianity is not the only faith that follows these same teachings, they just get them from different parts of often the same readings.
DeleteSamuel, I totally agree that Christianity follows the same teachings as many other religions. Many religions on the surface seem vastly different, but at their core hold the same values: a high power to be worshiped, rules to live by, consequences for our actions, and an after life. Also, not to get too deep in theology, the Christianity of today is not the same Christianity thousands of years ago. The one of today is a hybrid itself. It has evolved to be more acceptable to the masses. Which, in my opinion, is why it is suitable to be merged with our government. It may not be ideal for other nation, but is a good fit for ours. The exact same points can be said of our government: core values and evolution.
DeleteI believe it to be foolish to believe that we can exist in a world of various vacuums that do not connect and interact with one another. When topics such as religion and politics come up my immediate reaction is to try and separate them and prevent one from perverting the other from its intended goal. However, it seems impossible in this modern world to do so. As such I submit that we prevent unnecessary interaction between government and the religion such as we see in the schools, but accept that there will be places where overlap is acceptable. My example here considers situations such as the protection of various religions. Should the government not consider it, its duty to protect religious communities that have experiences extreme hate previously such as the Jewish and Muslim communities in America? I believe that government does have a role in protecting them and in that scenario government and religion could cross paths. Where I see the problem is in the use of religious belief to excuse or explain political action. When someone attempts to say that the reason a political leader should make a choice is due to their religious affiliation, then I believe they have taken their beliefs too far.
ReplyDeleteShould religion and politics be kept strictly separate, or is that possible?
ReplyDeleteI think that religion and politics should be kept separate. But, I do not think that is possible at all. Religion has been part of human history for years, and has been the driving force of a lot of politics. For a long time religion has existed, and rules have been created from it. The people who created these rules were, in essence, religious rulers. There are different political leaders in this world who abide by certain religions, and so do the citizens that may or may not have made them leaders. In America, we are lucky enough to be able to vote our presidents into office, and a lot of people make their voting decision based on what religion the candidate is. So, this is why it is difficult to keep religion and politics separate.
I would like to add another reason why its almost impossible to separate politics and religion. Most of the political issues we face are under the scrunity of a moral standard. For instance, the issue of gay marriage is really about rather one believes a person can commit to a person of the same sex. That question can only be answered based from a person's religious or moral belief. The underlying issue is: "what is morally right".
DeleteAmerica faces a unique dilemma when addressing the issue of religion in a political setting. Though it is explicit in our constitution that the separation of church and state is mandatory in the maintenance of a successful nation, religion plays an important role in politics nonetheless. Despite legal measures to keep religious matters inside the church, the simple fact that religion plays such a significant role in the lives of most Americans should serve as an indication of the futility of notions that would eradicate its influence in public matters. When we are talking about religion we are referring to individuals and groups who base their identities and ethics at least in part on a tradition and set
Deleteof beliefs. The power of religion has the capacity to inspire, motivate, and sustain both individual and collective action, and ii is very clear, however, that religion of all stripes is influencing political processes in ways that involve countries and societies.
Question 1 - In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
ReplyDeleteNo, all religions are not political ideologies. According to Chapter 3, of O'Neil, the rise of ideology led to "the privatization of religion" - the removal of faith from the public sphere and its relegation to private life (p.80). I understand this to mean that when a state has separated their religious beliefs from governing the state, it turns to a nonspiritual guide. The nonspiritual guide is political ideology- a system of collectively held beliefs and attitudes regarding political issues that advocate particular patterns of social arrangements. Because most states have separated church and state, their political views comes from ideologies.
However, there is a religion that can be regarded as a political ideology, Islam. According to Chapter 13 of Sadaro's book, Islamiac culture is to use the law of God as the framework for their political actions. Because Islam makes no distinction between church and state, it is considered a political ideology (p.306).
As noted from the readings, a political ideology is an alternative way of veiwing the "good life". Political ideologies such as liberalism, communism and fascism focus on human institutions, rather than a higher power. Sodaro speaks about another religion as a political ideology, Zionism, but did not go in detail of its teachings (p.306).
In addition to being faiths, are all religions political ideologies?
ReplyDeletePolitical ideology is a set of beliefs or ideas in which one believe the government ought to be, policies or laws they should purse or enforce. So when referring to political ideology,what is it that a person we're talking about what is that a person believe in and we normally convey that belief system to to political views. Therefore, we we look to someone to represent us we tend to look for someone who have views and beliefs that are consistent with our belief and when we elect official we usually elected officials who share our political ideology because we want them to carry out those same political ideology into legislation.
In regards to faith and religions comes into play when a particular party or issue is at the forefront and depending on how the parties handles it would affect a persons political stance. For examples the Liberal parties normally support LGBT and Pro-Choice, while the Conservative parties tend to not support LGBT, same-sex marriages, and Pro-Life.