Reaction to The Ithacan article and Hahnel Reading

The article from The Ithacan titled "Helping workers make ends meat" was a very interesting story. The article discusses the opening of a new, upscale hotel in the commons. The author of the article believes that the new hotel should pay its workers living wage as opposed to minimum wage. Living wage is basically what minimum wage was meant to be but as living costs have risen all throughout the country minimum wage has fallen behind. Living wage is what it costs a person or family to survive, in their region of the country, which includes food, shelter, health care, etc. As the minimum wage no longer suffices, many families have fallen below the level of poverty.

This concept is very controversial. It is easy to say that all employees should make the living wage for their region. Despite the simplicity of this statement, there are many other factors holding the minimum wage at its current level. Requiring employers to pay living wage means that to maintain their profits and growth the employer must in turn raise there costs. As costs rise, so will living wage.

I appreciate the concept, but if it were that simple, I wonder why the change has already happened. It will be interesting to see the outcome of Maryland paying living wages. I hope from their experiment with paying employees living wage, they will be able to work out any issues before it becomes a national trend.

In the article by Hahnel, "Fighting for Reforms without becoming Reformist", she fights the concept that reform is a bad thing. Reform, especially in terms of socialism, has a bad stigma is a capitalist society because people are afraid that the opportunity for wealth and competition will be lost.

Hahnel states that, in fact, "If winning a reform further empowers people, and whets their appetite for more democracy, more economic justice, and more environmental protection than capitalism can provide, it can hasten the democratic creation of an alternative to capitalism." What she means is that reform should not be feared if it in fact will move us toward a more democratic society, increasing our freedoms and protections at the same time.

Hahnel proposes "combining reform work with work to establish and expand imperfect experiments in equitable cooperation." She believes that neither would be successful alone. Hahnel also believes the success of this strategy must come with political support.

Hahnel believes that proof of the possibility of a more equitable and democratic society that is less environmental destructive is necessary. She believes that simply fighting for the cause will not bring upon change.

Reaction to Berstein and Luxemburg Reading

The main difference in ideology between the two authors was that Bernstein believed in Social Democracy and Luxemburg believed in scientific socialism. Bernstein believed that the impending collapse of capitalism, that Marx and Engels predicted in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, would take a lot longer than predicted. This led Bernstein to hypothesis that capitalism would not fail, but democracy would be able to balance the issues with capitalism. Luxemburg, on the other hand, said that if capitalism was not going to result in its own demise, then socialism would cease to exist.

Bernstein believed that capitalism was not going to lead to a catastrophe, in which, socialism would arise as the dominant form of government. On the contrary, Bernstein believed that capitalism would not fail, but adapt. Capitalism will be able to adapt by the organizing the working class, which would allow them to gain political power, and fight for reforms. Bernstein believes that the more a country's government moves towards democracy, the less likely there will be a collapse in capitalism.

Luxemburg disagreed with Bernstein's critique of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Luxemburg believed that if Bernstein was correct, then there would be no use for socialism. Luxemburg believed that capitalism would ultimately lead to its own ruin. Socialism would no longer be necessary if capitalism did not fail, because socialism is to be the result of the material development of society (capitalism). Socialism believes that the growing anarchy or capitalism, is what ultimate leads to the working class gaining power and over throwing the bourgeoisie.

Luxemburg, throughout the entire piece, never states his true feelings on the matter. Instead Luxemburg concentrates on clarifying the fact that socialism would cease to exist if capitalism was able to adapt rather then fail. Luxemburg implies that Bernstein's argument shows him to be a social democrat. According to Luxemburg this means that Bernstein believes that the working class "should not direct its daily activity toward the conquest of political power, but toward the betterment of the condition of the working class." (Luxemburg 4)

Reaction to Engels and Marx Reading

I believe Engels and Marx are directing their writing in the Manifesto of the Communist Party to the bourgeoisie. When the authors begin discussing the ideology of communism they begin statements with you. You is the bourgeois, that would be most opposed to the ideas of communism. However, I believe the target audience is actually the proletarians. The proletarians have the majority to rise against the bourgeoisie. The authors are offering the idea of communism, with no private property, as a reason and incentive for the proletarian to act.

Bourgeoisie are the oppressors of a country. The bourgeoisie is a small minority of middle class owners of property. The bourgeoisie believe in capitalism which encompasses the idea of free trade, and free buying and selling. The bourgeoisie supports capitalism because it allows its members to gain wealth and property while paying the proletarians, or working class, the minimum wage. Minimum wage in this sense is the minimum amount of money necessary to continue to live.

The Manifesto of the Communist Party is directed at the bourgeoisie because it discusses how "you" would be horrified to hear of abolishing private property. These and other statements are directed at ideas that the bourgeoisie would be opposed to in terms of communism. The authors also state that the bourgeoisie would be opposed because it would cause individuality to vanish once private property is abolished. These statements are used to point fingers at the bourgeoisie while empowering the proletariat.

Proletarians are the oppressed. They are the working class, who are employed by members of the bourgeois. The proletariat maintains a large majority of the population. They typically don't own property and must continuously work to maintain a living.

"The Proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority." (Engels & Marx, 6) The proletarian movement is assisted by those on the lower edges of the bourgeois such as shopkeepers, landlords, manufactures, etc. And a small section of the bourgeoisie join the proletarian revolution because it is the class the holds the future in its hands. Also the "dangerous class", the people from the lowest layers of the old society can also be swept in to support the proletariat.

Reaction to Burke Reading

Burke is completely against the adoption of democracy in France. At the time France was run with an absolute monarchy and had been for quite sometime. Burke believed that "by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society; hazarding to leave to those who come after them, a ruin instead of an habitation" Burke felt that any change in the current absolute monarchy would result in individuals solely looking out for their own interest. That there needed to be some government above them to keep men humble and obedient.

Burke believes that democracy and liberty for all would result in a return to the state of nature, or anarchy. With people arrogant to one another and thinking that they are the wisest and know the best way to run this country. Burke believed that people looking out for though own interest would only be a temporary interest before it led the country to shambles. "By this unprincipled facility of changing the state as often, and as much, and in as many ways as there are floating fancies and fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth would be broken." Burke believed that democracy was continuously changing and therefore would not be able to exist. That whatever was preferred or fancied at that instant could become rule to the people.

Burke also believed that the end of absolute anarchy and a switch to democracy would lead to corruption and chaos. He didn't feel that the world as France knew it could maintain under a democracy. "Barbarism with regard to science and literature, unskillfulness with regard to arts and manufactures, would infallibly succeed to the want of steady education and settled principle." Burke felt that practices such as education would instead turn into corruption. The more knowledge a person had, the more able they were to corrupt other individuals.

In order to convince people to maintain an absolute monarchy, Burke discussed how government should be treated. People of a nation "should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solitude." In other words, the problems of an absolute monarchy should be viewed as if they were faults of your father. Instead of changing these faults, as a child, we must wait and hope that the government makes the necessary changes to correct itself.

Burke basically argues should be very difficult to change and cannot be due to temporary fancies or fashions. To Burke government is a partnership that is formed through government links the living, dead, and the unborn. Therefore, any adjustments must be for the good of all involved, including those to come.

Burke discusses the current government as a "worthy offering on the high altar of universal praise." This notion is used to convince those reading it that the state is the only way to reach perfection in society. As a gift from above, who would dare attempt to change what God has handed down?

Reaction to Heywood and Kirk Readings

From Andrew Heywood's excerpt, Conservatism has been thought of as a "negative" philosophy because of the nature in which the conservative philosophy came about. Conservatism was established as an ideology that resisted constant change in economic and political policies. Because of how conservatism ideals emerged it is a reaction to change. This is negative because it allows conservative ideals to exist as a resistance to change. Conservatism is seen as a defense to change. Even those that consider themselves conservative don't like to acknowledge it as a ideology. Instead followers feel it is more an "attitude of mind" or "approach to life". Conservatism has been able to continue, in this sense, because "it has been unwilling to be tied down to a fixed system of ideas."

The conservative perspective on change varies between different types of conservatism. British conservatism believes that strict resistance to change is not the best method. Instead the British conservatives feel that change must come about when change is needed to preserve the country, the country's values, etc. On the other hand, Authoritarian conservatism either refuses change or attempts to bring the state of the country back to a better time in the past. The New Right has been seen as an attempt to balance traditions and values toward libertarianism. The New Right believes in free market economics, which distinguishes it from most other types of conservatism.

Russel Kirk's ten principles of conservatism have some similarities with the excerpt by Andrew Heywood. The fourth principle states that "conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence." Which means that conservatives judge everything by the long-term consequences. This idea can also be seen in the conservative excerpt because Heywood states that conservatives for the most part are only willing to "change in order to conserve". Both replicate the idea that conservatives would rather not change, but when necessary why their options and take their time making decisions.

Also the tenth principle of Kirk's states that a "conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society." A conservative believes that while society progresses it also declines. The excerpt states that conservatism attempts to maintain traditional beliefs and values. They believe that progress compromises other liberties and thus should be avoided when necessary. Change to a conservative is only used to preserve the existing order, not to adopt new principles.

Reaction to Friedman Reading

In Friedman's piece, he discussed our day-to-day lives as if they were a game. In this game the players needed to agree upon the rules of the game and to have an umpire to regulate the game. Friedman stated that government acted as the umpire. He stated that unless all the players of a game agreed that the rules were fair then there were would be no set of rules that would prevail. The umpire, or government, was responsible for allowing the players a way of adjusting the rules, mediation between players, and enforce that the rules were followed.

The government must decide the best way ti resolve issues among individuals to protect the freedom of all. Friedman states that "men's freedom can conflict, and when they do, one man's freedom must be limited to preserve another's." Because nobody in a free society should have to have their freedoms limited by another the government must create consequences for these instances.

Freidman states that the role of government "is to do something that the market cannot do for itself." Without government it would be difficult for men to determine what rules are necessary for a free society and even more difficult to enforce them. A government also has the responsiblility of intervening in the game if consequences of a free society are causing individual's freedoms to be impaired. This is specifically the case with monopolies and neighborhood effects. Monopolies require government intervention because they defeat the concept of a free society. A free society must be voluntary and offer alternatives. Monopolies are the absence of alternatives. Neighborhood effects, on the other hand, are when "actions of individuals have effects on other individuals for which it is not feasible to charge or recompense them.

Friedman's perspective of government as an umpire in a democratic society seems to be an accurate description. For the most part people are able to go about their day-to-day lives without government interference. However, when a problem arises or a player is breaking the rules of the game it is the government's responsible to deal with the situation. The government employs many tools to attempt to keep the game as fair and free as possible. The government has police officers and courts to enforce rules and to give consequences when rules are not followed.