TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- PDD's Papers and Editorials
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
PDD's Papers and Editorials
I know there are a number of people who frequent the PDD who are currently students of history, political science, economics, religion, philosophy, international affairs, etc., and it may be interesting to see the focus of our individual studies. So let this thread be a place where we can post our own original content - be it a term paper on a relevant PDD-type topic, a policy brief, letter to the editor, or rant you posted on your blog.
Any takers? If enough people choose to participate, maybe Lira would sticky it? I know I for one would be interested in reading some of the more thought-provoking things you've written for class or work, but maybe that's just the nerdy grad school student in me talking.
And who knows... maybe some of the papers will in turn provoke some discussion amongst everyone else.
ARCHIVE:
1. Lebezniatnikov - A Role for Privatized Military Corporations in Uganda
http://pddpapers.livejournal.com/794.html
2. Krypton - Psychology of the Stock Market
http://pddpapers.livejournal.com/1245.html
3. Krypton - Retrospective Insight into American Occupation in Iraq
http://pddpapers.livejournal.com/1405.html
4. Krypton - Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy Analysis (1,000 words)
http://pddpapers.livejournal.com/1722.html
5. Lebezniatnikov - The Peril of Liberty
http://pddpapers.livejournal.com/1987.html
I'm definitely in.
I've got a crap load of interesting stuff I've written.
I suppose I should put my money where my mouth is. I don't know how much interest in this subject there is, but I'm taking a fairly controversial position in this one, basically arguing that firms like Blackwater could potentially serve well as peace-keepers in Africa if given the appropriate mandate.
*************************************************************************
A Role for PMCs in Uganda
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lesbianosaur I suppose I should put my money where my mouth is. I don't know how much interest in this subject there is, but I'm taking a fairly controversial position in this one, basically arguing that firms like Blackwater could potentially serve well as peace-keepers in Africa if given the appropriate mandate. |
Here is a short paper I wrote about the collective "crowd psychology" of the stock market, and how it can affect market prices, create bubbles, and sell-off panics.
THESIS: According to the Efficient Market Theory, all market prices for any named security reflect all information that is known, and thus represents the collective beliefs of all investors as to the market value of the security (Han, 2002). The market is directed by the transactions of investors who are human. Humans are not mathematical creatures but rather biological in nature, and so when observing the market behavior at any one time, there is always the presence of irrational speculation based in the instinctual psychology of humans.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychology of the Stock Market
According to the Efficient Market Theory, all market prices for any named security reflect all information that is known, and thus represents the collective beliefs of all investors as to the market value of the security (Han, 2002). The market is directed by the transactions of investors who are human. Humans are not mathematical creatures but rather biological in nature, and so when observing the market behavior at any one time, there is always the presence of irrational speculation based in the instinctual psychology of humans.
The 1990’s brought the internet to the developed world bringing an entirely new economy of internet business to millions around the world. New online start-ups began opening up almost everyday. It seemed like nothing would stop this new economy from completely dominating any market that had come before it. This new economy seemed to be the place every savvy investor was supposed to be and billions of dollars were poured into these dot-com companies. As the 1990’s came to an end, cautious voices began sounding off to an inevitable bust much to the dismay of the millions of dot-com investors. There was seemingly no reason to believe these naysayer’s as anyone who had invested 5 years prior to 2000 in the technology sector would have seen astronomical returns. Many people became instant millions during these times, but the naysayer’s were right. On March 10, 2000, the exorbitant technology market prices plummeted (NASDAQ). The technology index represented by the NASDAQ lost more than 60% of its value in the following two years representing billions of dollars wiped clean off the table. Anyone left behind would have lost it all and many were scared right out of the market.
This situation highlights a scenario that is not at all uncommon in the stock market. It starts with a new trend in which investors believe will be the next object to appreciate. As investors pile on, the businesses themselves neglect to follow traditional business models, so the market prices are not a true reflection of the underlying business model. Despite this, investors continue pouring more money into these faulty companies which seemingly defies rationality. The scenario then progresses to the sell-off, triggered by large institutional liquidation, which in turn starts a market panic. Investors across the board scramble to recover what money they have left in these decrepit businesses they thought were invincible.
Social psychology helps one to understand that the dot-com bust is characterized by the speculative driving force of the human herd mentality. Everyone saw everyone else getting rich from these new dot-com companies and so started the mass buying of the entire technology sector. No one wanted to be left out. This instinctual desire to be in the group of winners blinded investors to the reality of what really drives the markets long-term. Profitable business models were scrapped for novelty stocks which had not even made a profit, but despite this, the herd mentality dominated.
Understanding this mass movement requires a study of group psychology using naturalistic observation. Participants in the market at the time of the dot-com boom would have found it difficult to take a step back and observe market psychology alone driving up stock prices in its natural setting, irrespective of the business model. Therefore to truly observe the scenario from an unbiased and objective view would have required a separation from participation in the market or more specifically the technology sector. Any naturalistic observer would have examined the underlying business models without any emotion towards the business and seen the exorbitant prices were not supported by business performances but only by the extremely high demand for stock by a stampede of speculating investors. The correct mode of interaction would have been not to participate in any of the rampant speculation, but to examine business fundamentals and base an investment decision on this analysis.
Wise investors always examine the market from an unbiased, objective, and individualistic view so as to separate one’s self from the stampede. Humans are group creatures and are always susceptible to the influence of others actions, especially when it seems like everyone is doing the same thing. Taking a step back to observe the psychological market forces can help a sophisticated investor avoid the cycles of the inevitable busts that always end the booms.
References
Han, A. (2002). Efficient Market Hypothesis. Retrieved September 10, 2007 from http://www.alvinhan.com/Efficient-Market-Hypothesis.htm
NASDAQ 40-year Price Chart. Retrieved September 10, 2007 from http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/my/_/_ixic
This is my favorite paper! It basically forms my opinion of the invasion of Iraq 2003, and this is from where I started my opposition to the war.... If anyone has any comments on this one, I'de love to here them! If you don't want to read the entire thing, read the first paragraph which starts off with the background and my thesis....!!
THESIS: On March 20, 2003, an American-led coalition invaded Iraq on the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) believed to be in Iraq’s possession. Investigators found nothing after scouring Iraq searching for the alleged WMDs for almost 2 full years. According to the Iraq Survey Group (ISG)(Duelfer, 2004), Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed and Saddam ended the country's nuclear program after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The US invasion of Iraq was based on faulty intelligence and violated the sovereignty of Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retrospective Insight into American Occupation in Iraq
On March 20, 2003, an American-led coalition invaded Iraq on the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) believed to be in Iraq’s possession. Investigators found nothing after scouring Iraq searching for the alleged WMDs for almost 2 full years. According to the Iraq Survey Group (ISG)(Duelfer, 2004), Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed and Saddam ended the country's nuclear program after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The US invasion of Iraq was based on faulty intelligence and violated the sovereignty of Iraq.
Faulty Intelligence
(Weapons of Mass Destruction)
The main argument the Bush administration provided to justify an invasion of Iraq was that the Saddam Hussein regime was developing weapons of mass destruction that posed a serious threat to the United States, its allies, and interests (Powell, 2006). In Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, he made his position clear by stating the United States could not wait until Iraq was an imminent threat (Bush, 2003). Thus, it was necessary for the United States to act preemptively in a military intervention before Saddam had developed his WMDs.
The Bush Administration did act on March 20, 2003, invading Iraq in an almost perfect execution of “shock and awe” to Iraqi forces. Iraq’s government and military forces quickly fell and by May 1, 2003, President Bush had made his now-famous “Mission Accomplished” speech. The general thought was once Iraq’s conventional forces were routed, the war would be over. Unfortunately, by the end of 2003, insurgents aided by post-invasion looting of huge weapons stockpiles began stepping up attacks on coalition forces on an unprecedented scale.
Shortly after the invasion, the coalition sent in a 1,400 member international team known as the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). Their sole purpose was to search for the alleged weapons of mass destruction, any correlating research programs, and any infrastructure related to WMD development. The ISG picked up where the original UN weapons inspections teams (UNMOVIC) and IAEA left off. It must be noted that no inspections by the ISG, UNMOVIC, nor IAEA ever found weapons of mass destruction as alleged by the Bush Administration.
The findings of the ISG were reported on September 30, 2004 in the Duelfer Report (Duelfer, 2006). This final report on Iraq’s WMD programs indicated several things:
1. There was no active Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
2. No chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons were ever found.
3. Saddam’s main concern was mitigation of UN economic sanctions.
In January 2005, the ISG concluded its search stating, “We have not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003. There is a possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability." (Cornwell, Russell, Penketh, 2004). The implications of the Duelfer Report are strong indications of a major intelligence failure in the United States, or of a criminal manipulation of intelligence data to suit the means for an invasion.
(Alleged Al-Qaeda Relationship)
On February 5, 2003, former Secretary of State Colin Powell presented several claims about Iraq’s supposed ties to Al-Qaeda to the UN Security Council (Powell, 2003). In his presentation, he asserted that the Iraqi regime supported terrorism by making these allegations (Powell, 2006).
1. Iraq harbored Al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi who set up an explosives training camp in northeastern Iraq.
2. Going back as far as the mid-90’s, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had come to an understanding that Al-Qaeda would no longer support activities against Baghdad.
3. Sometime in the mid-90s, Saddam Hussein is supposed to have sent Iraqi agents to Afghanistan to provide document forgery training to Al-Qaeda members.
4. Iraq had offered biological and chemical weapons training for an Al-Qaeda operative beginning in December 2000. Specifically, an operative named Abu Abdulla Al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq to obtain information on acquiring poisons and gases.
The CIA later came out in August 2004 stating (Strobel, Landay, Walcott, 2004), “There is no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.” The fact is the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda affiliates is extremely doubtful at best. In fact, the source of the Zarqawi-Saddam connection was Al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who was viewed as untrustworthy by US intelligence. This specific piece of intelligence he provided was under very questionable circumstances as he was in the detention of Egyptian authorities at the time, a country known to use torture. The information al-Libi provided under harsh treatment could not be counted on as creditable intelligence. In a November 2005 Newsweek article, two US counter-terrorism officials said they believed Colon Powell had obtained the information about supposed Iraqi involvement with Zarqawi and Al-Iraqi exclusively from Egyptian-held al-Libi. The evidence provided to the Security Council about Iraqi ties to Al-Qaeda is still unfounded to this day.
Violation of Sovereignty
According to the Charter of the UN (1945), Article 2(1) states, “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Sovereignty by its very definition is the right of supreme authority within a geographical boundry. The Charter of the UN guarantees 6 rights to national sovereignty (Whitman).
1. States are legally equal.
2. Every state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty.
3. Every state is obligated to respect the fact of the legal entity of other states.
4. The territorial integrity and political independence of a state are not to be violated.
5. Each state has the right to freely choose and develop its own political, social, economic, and cultural systems.
6. Each state is obligated to carry out its international obligations fully and conscientiously and to live in peace with other states.
These are the rules peaceful nations follow in their foreign policy, especially when applying these rules to international law. As such, the doctrine of preemptive warfare is a fallacy because the action punishes what another sovereign nation might do, which bases preemption on prediction, and prediction is of course relative speculation and could be wrong. No country should ever base a military action on a prediction of what might happen, but rather should base it on whether a fellow nation’s sovereignty has been infringed upon by an aggressor.
The invasion of Iraq does not constitute a lawful military action according to the rules set forth by the UN Charter. Iraq was not threatening the sovereignty of any other nation. Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were all attacked by Saddam Hussein but the UN reaction was swift in enforcing the rules on Iraq, punishing the country with expulsion from conquered territories and economic sanctions. Countries with a weak economy can seldom make war against its neighbors.
Once it was realized that WMDs were not likely to be found, many war proponents shifted their excuse to invade Iraq on the basis of the regime’s human rights record. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein brutalized his own people, denying them life and liberty. But every nation has the right to freely choose and develop its own political, social, economic, and cultural systems. It is the Iraqi people who must make the decision to change their domestic scenario and not a foreign power. No freedom has ever come without the bloodshed of patriots. That is why the US cannot simply bestow upon the Iraqi’s a democracy, but rather the Iraqi’s must shed their own blood before they can attain such freedom. In the short essay A Few Words on Non-Intervention (Mills, 1873), John Mill states, “If the people have not sufficient love of liberty to be able to wrest it from merely domestic oppressors, the liberty which is bestowed on them by other hands than their own will have nothing real, nothing permanent.”
(Regional Balance of Power)
The absence of any central governing body with authority over all nations makes international balance of power the only alternative to keeping countries in check (Whitman). Iraq’s power was balanced regionally not by the US, UN, or any coalition; Iran was the premier counter-weight to Iraq’s aggressiveness. The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) ended in a bloody stalemate even when Saddam used poison gas on Iranian soldiers and Kurdish rebels. Regime change was not necessary. The measures taken against Iraq in economic sanctions, military no-fly zones, and continued ostracizing were enough to contain Saddam’s aggressiveness and essentially hold his power in check.
Iran took the opportunity of Iraq’s destruction to bolster itself up, as Iran’s own counter-balance, Iraq, no longer served to threaten them. The huge regional US military presence gave the Iranians an excuse to begin development of nuclear capabilities in an apparent attempt to balance their power with that of the American nuclear arsenal. The Iranians know that if they have nuclear weapons, being the target of a military intervention will no longer be possible. The Iranian regime views their right to nuclear power as a right to defend themselves against American aggressiveness.
The US is now obligated to fill the regional power vacuum formerly filled by Iraq or let the region fall into a struggle to fill the vacuum. Democracy is bound to fail in Iraq as the Iraqis are the ones who must take freedom into their own hands or else that freedom is not truly real. The essence of the American mission to Iraq is inherently flawed and bound to fail.
Conclusion
Military action should be taken only when the sovereignty of a nation is violated by another nation or group. Otherwise, occupied peoples resent the occupier, take up arms, and form resistance groups. Preemptive military action should be undertaken only under undeniable evidence that an aggressor nation is about to violate the sovereignty of another nation. The Bush Administration provided deniable proof and thus made a gross error in invading Iraq.
The interventionism undertaken by the Bush Administration is by far the most dangerous form of foreign policy any country, especially the United States, could undertake. The current situation makes an example out of interventionist policy. Iran is trying to place itself as the dominant Middle Eastern power, sectarian tensions within Iraq are leading to civil war, coalition troops are continuing to take casualties for a failed strategic mission, and Iraqi civilians are suffering just as badly now as under the Saddam regime. Future foreign policy should never include unilateral military action on sovereign countries that have not attacked us.
References
Bush, G. (2003, January). 2003 State of the Union Address. Speech presented to the United States Congress.
Charter of the United Nations. (1945). Article 2, Chapter 1. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/.
Cornwell, R., Russell, B., Penketh, A. (2004, July 10). WMD report sinks Bush's main rationale for war. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://freenet.buffalo.edu/nuclear/NZH-10-8.htm
Mills, J. Dissertations and Discussions, (New York: Holt & Co., 1873), pp. 238-263. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from
Powell, C. (2003, February). Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation. Speech presented at the UN Security Council.
Strobel, W., Landay, J., and Walcott, J. (5 October 2004). Fresh CIA analysis: No evidence Saddam colluded with al-Qaida. Seattle Times, A9.
The Duelfer Report. (2004). Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html
Whitman, J. (n.d.) An End to Soveriegnty. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE95/Whitman95.html
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Retrospective Insight into American Occupation in Iraq |
| quote: |
| Sovereignty by its very definition is the right of supreme authority within a geographical boundry. |
| quote: |
The Charter of the UN guarantees 6 rights to national sovereignty (Whitman). 1. States are legally equal. 2. Every state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty. 3. Every state is obligated to respect the fact of the legal entity of other states. 4. The territorial integrity and political independence of a state are not to be violated. 5. Each state has the right to freely choose and develop its own political, social, economic, and cultural systems. 6. Each state is obligated to carry out its international obligations fully and conscientiously and to live in peace with other states. |
| quote: |
The invasion of Iraq does not constitute a lawful military action according to the rules set forth by the UN Charter. Iraq was not threatening the sovereignty of any other nation. Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were all attacked by Saddam Hussein but the UN reaction was swift in enforcing the rules on Iraq, punishing the country with expulsion from conquered territories and economic sanctions. Countries with a weak economy can seldom make war against its neighbors. |
| quote: |
Once it was realized that WMDs were not likely to be found, many war proponents shifted their excuse to invade Iraq on the basis of the regime’s human rights record. |
| quote: |
| There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein brutalized his own people, denying them life and liberty. But every nation has the right to freely choose and develop its own political, social, economic, and cultural systems. It is the Iraqi people who must make the decision to change their domestic scenario and not a foreign power. |
| quote: |
| No freedom has ever come without the bloodshed of patriots. That is why the US cannot simply bestow upon the Iraqi’s a democracy, but rather the Iraqi’s must shed their own blood before they can attain such freedom. In the short essay A Few Words on Non-Intervention (Mills, 1873), John Mill states, “If the people have not sufficient love of liberty to be able to wrest it from merely domestic oppressors, the liberty which is bestowed on them by other hands than their own will have nothing real, nothing permanent.” |
This paper is a little different, but probably appeals to the interests of more people. The assignment was to make an argument about what constitutes citizenship in the United States. My take is that citizenship is achieved when one willingly sets aside self-interest for the pursuit of the common good through governance.
**************************************************************************
Taking the Pledge: Membership in America
Introduction to American Political Thought
As each person recites the oath of citizenship, they become incorporated into the American body politick, imbued with the legal rights and responsibilities of a full member of American citizenship. The American community is a cohesive unit composed of political animals that are active in political and civic society in any number of ways. Though individuals are endowed with certain inalienable rights, it is by their active participation in society that they make them their own, claiming a stake in the society that preserves and protects their rights. A government for the people and by the people is dependent on an active populace that will participate in the governance of society. A democracy is by definition participatory, and as such, it requires that citizens invest themselves in political discourse. In return, a democracy promotes the best interests of the populace, working toward the basic rights that are incorporated into the common good. I believe that the ideal American political community is a united, homogenous group of people committed to pursuing the common good through voluntary participation in the body politick. Therefore, the republican values of the common good and participation are essential to any democratic union, and as such, should be the primary criterion for voluntary association with the American political community.
The Oath of Citizenship is a rite of passage for those newly included as members of the United States of America, and is a product of the republican tradition of American political thought. For those not granted citizenship in the United States by birthright, membership in the political community is still available. There is no legal universal standard for the Oath of Citizenship, but by law it must contain at least five specific components. First, each pledge must proclaim allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Second, each pledge must renounce any allegiance to foreign governments or entities, signifying that membership within the United States supercedes any other past or present connection. By simultaneously pronouncing loyalty to the American government and renouncing loyalty to all others, the pledge shows the extent to which the political and social ideals of American thought should resonate with the individual self.
This oath symbolizes a commitment to rule of law and democracy, consistent with the values and ideas embedded in the government. The Constitution creates a union of states and individuals under one federal government, devoted to the national rather than individual good. To be American, one must feel an affinity with all fellow members of the national community, and a demonstrated allegiance to the principles and ideas of society signifies a commitment to the common good. Sacvan Bercovitch explains that American nationalism is a cultural consensus, whereby all members of the community are united in a common “conception of the future as the present.” Following the Revolutionary War, “Nation meant Americans, Americans meant the people, and the people meant those who, thanks to the Revolution, enjoyed a commonplace prosperity: the simple, sunny rewards of American middle-class culture” (emphasis original).
The first two components of the oath of citizenship serve to unify the body politick through the expression of faith in the community as a whole. Unity within the community belies the notion that the common good of society is more important than any one individual’s private self-interest. This hearkens back to the Puritan tradition from whence democracy came; namely, the tightly-knit community that pre-dated contemporary feudal notions of the state that never emerged in America. In this community, all members are inherently equal and strive for shared interests. In the words of Tocqueville, Americans enjoy “equality of conditions.” The American community should be filled with active participants, who, equal in dedication to the common good of society as a whole, will sacrifice self-interest for the general welfare. The oath of citizenship symbolizes the shedding of differences to join a homogenous community where all strive toward one common goal. As Louis Hartz proclaimed, the absence of a feudal history in America meant that people are born equal, and not retroactively made equal by government. All distinctions between people become irrelevant within the greater society, for each person in the political community is simply an American.
The third requisite component of the oath is a promise to defend the Constitution against all dangers. An individual life is of less import than the values of liberty and community embedded in the common good, the bedrock of membership in the American community. Fourth, each new member must promise to participate in the armed services if called upon by law, demonstrating a commitment to the security of the United States above all else, and again, the willingness to sacrifice one’s life for the common good of the Union. And fifth, the oath requires one to perform other civic responsibilities required by law of members of the community, such as serving on jury duty. Participation is an important element of American political thought, and is thus embedded in the core of the Oath of Citizenship. This oath may be considered by some a mere performance, but there is no doubt that the tenets of the republican tradition permeate to its core, and that by taking the oath, one affirms the fundamental values and traditions upon which this nation was founded.
Though mere citizenship is the requisite standard for membership in the American political community, it carries several responsibilities that must also be met. Aristotle wrote that man is by nature a political animal, and that the highest human good is reached through political participation by those who are members of society. To rule and be ruled in return is to develop habits and ethics consistent with virtue and the common good. This requires a certain level of independence, which is ensured through republican values of education and security. The existence of the community as a homogenous group with both a stake in society and a unified common interest creates security. A unified community is free from the factionalism characteristic of self-interest, and instead promotes the application of the common good universally through its membership.
To become a citizen with full rights and privileges, one should become an active member of the body politick. This can be done in a variety of ways. Participation in government itself, either through running for office or voting, is an important responsibility of citizenship, though is not the only means by which one can participate. Civil society and religion are conduits for participation, and the voluntary association of individuals according to interests and beliefs is a valuable component of a democratic society. Service in society signifies a dedication to the principles of common good and communal well-being. Membership in the political community should be rooted in participation within it, either politically or civically. Without participation, a person has absolutely no stake in society, and therefore no interest in the common good.
Low rates of participation lead inevitably to a decline in moral virtue of citizens and the rise of self-interest and factions. When individual activity is centered on political power and commerce, self-interest takes precedence over the common good. Therefore, it is essential that all members of the political community remain active, striving for the benefit of all rather than self. In order to combat selfishness and ensure virtue, habits and mores must be inculcated through the education system, as advised by Tocqueville. The tradition of political theology stipulates that education is essential in inculcating the virtues and habits essential for good membership in a community. Habits and virtues are learned products of education, and must be applied toward the common good in order to stave off the corruption of the community, which can arise in several ways.
First, strict adherence to the tradition of political liberalism entails support of innate natural rights, both inalienable and undeniable. However, self-interest unavoidably leads to competition, rather than cooperation, between individuals. Strict liberalism thus erodes the common good through the pervasiveness of individual commercial interests. Because natural rights are so important, it is in the individual interest to limit the control of government over the private sphere. The government serves, therefore, merely to prevent members of society from destroying one another, and not to promote the common good through positive production. Second, external influences and commerce only serve to increase instability through the introduction of further diverse individual interests into a cohesive, homogenous community. According to political theologists, commerce is a corrupting influence on society because it instills the desire to accumulate wealth at the expense of others. Exposure to other groups of people through economic activity is therefore problematic, as commerce eventually leads to the erosion of common good as a foundation for society and government.
To combat instability caused by self-interest and commerce, education should be centered on the inculcation of common virtues and the belief in republican notions of the common good and civic participation. Though authoritarian, standard education requirements such as these ensure the stability of American society. In this way, indoctrination can be a useful means of ensuring that a society remains tied to equality and the common good. Tocqueville writes that common habits and mores related to virtue breed not only equality among all members, but sympathy and compassion as well, which facilitate the importance of the common good. Of course, the rise of factions and diverse interests in a large republic is unavoidable, so the government has been constructed in order to contain factionalism from infringing upon the common good. The system of checks and balances written into the Constitution inherently balance the emergence of eventual self-interested groups and individuals within government.
As Pocock notes, corruption must be avoided on the societal level through equality within virtue. Pocock’s notion of the virtuous includes only those men who own property, are deeply religious, and have attained some level of basic education. However, his definition of membership in society is somewhat flawed in a secular state. Religious affiliation is one form of participation in civic society, and when Pocock’s notion of citizenship is expanded, one can see that the important component of religion is the participation within it. Therefore, active participation within civil society, in conjunction with ownership of property and education, are sufficient means of membership in a republican society. Tocqueville observed that the prevalence of public space contributes to increased political discourse among the population, which generally leads to increased participation in governance. Property ownership also lends itself to increased political participation in two ways. First, property generates self-reliance, and frees an individual to work toward the common good without being dependent on individual commercial connections. Second, property ownership ensures that the owner has a stake in the security of the existing society under which the property is owned.
The origins of American political traditions reveal even more about society than a survey of present-day conditions. At the time of the Revolution, there existed two sharp distinctions between political life in Europe and America. Americans were politically active whereas Europeans were not, and Americans exerted tremendous control over their own daily life as a result of decentralized government. The values of participation and localized government were evident in the Declaration of Independence, which espoused the innate, natural rights of mankind, including equality and the entitlement to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. However, it retained republican and Puritan concepts of the decentralized community, arguing that the absence of hierarchy among citizens would lead to a virtuous, stable society. In the tradition of the jeremiad, the Declaration cites abuses of natural rights by the corrupt British government. Therein lays a tension within the liberal tradition. All humankind was created to be equal, but even government becomes susceptible to the whims of self-interest. This corruption led the colonies to declare their independence from the unvirtuous British government.
The Declaration reflected the liberal values of the individual. Britain had infringed upon the individual rights of the colonists, and in retribution, Americans announced their innate natural rights and came together as an aggregate of individuals to fight for freedom from tyranny. However, the political dynamic between individuals and society had changed greatly, and soon the Constitution presented a society constructed from one cohesive whole, rather than an aggregate of many parts. “We the People,” begins the Constitution, signifying the dramatic shift to a national consciousness tied to the common good of all members of society.
The brilliance of membership in American society is its flexibility. The Preamble to the Constitution, in declaring for the people universal beliefs and goals, establishes a common platform of values for membership that is entirely voluntary. The power of the Constitution lies in the voluntary submission to it. The political theology tradition believes that membership in the congregation - though a privilege - is voluntary. Reflecting the free will of mankind that is intrinsic to the origin of America itself, American citizenship operates through voluntary association. Max Weber, in discussing the political theology tradition of religious sects in America, highlights the importance of voluntary association. Members of religious sects have proven their virtue and commitment to the communal good before acceptance, but the decision to associate with a group is not compulsory. Seymour Martin Lipset characterizes the sectarian nature of religion in America as exceptional due to its voluntary, participatory nature.
The freedom of association in all things, great and small, placates the public, and ensures that self-interest never overtakes the common good. In other words, freedom of association not only benefits the common good, but also ensures security. Tocqueville writes, “If you perceive Americans on all sides working without relaxation in the execution of some important and difficult design that the least revolution could confound, you easily conceive why people so well occupied are not tempted to trouble the state or to destroy a public repose from which they profit.” The evident conclusion of Tocqueville is that a busy population is a happy population. However, Tocqueville notes well that this notion can be dangerous for two distinct reasons. First, when government requires compulsory associations, the people are held captive. One must only remember the phrase Arbeit macht Frei in order to understand the danger of carrying out this practice.
Second, Tocqueville notes that the European fear of free association was rooted in the notion that factions in favor of revolution would inevitably emerge. The exceptionalism of the United States lies in the ability of the population to, “within the political associations that Americans of all conditions […] get the general taste for association […] and familiarize themselves with its use. There they […] understand each other, and in common become animated for all sorts of undertakings.” He concludes that the freedom of association in America has “passed into habits and mores.”
Though the two prerequisites of membership, commitment to the public good and active participation in society, must be met before being considered a full member of the community, the eventual association with the American state is entirely voluntary. A new immigrant to America is given the opportunity to decide when and if he or she will apply to become a citizen, and all residents in the United States have the opportunity to become active members in the American body politick, but are not compelled to do so out of necessity. Americans are also free to leave the state, so long as they find another to accept them. In this way, the voluntary association to the American political community is an important and essential component of what it means to be a member, and a vital contributor to the maintenance of American security.
Works Cited
Appleby, Joyce. “Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination.” In Andreas Hess (Ed.) American Social and Political Thought: A Reader. New York City: New York University Press, 2003. pp. 113-118.
Barber, Benjamin. “The Compromised Republic.” In Andreas Hess (Ed.) American Social and Political Thought: A Reader. New York City: New York University Press, 2003. pp. 141-147.
Bercovitch, Sacvan. “The American Jeremiad.” In Andreas Hess (Ed.) American Social and Political Thought: A Reader. New York City: New York University Press, 2003. pp. 80-88.
“The Constitution of the United States of America.” In Kenneth M. Dolbeare and Michael S. Cummings (Eds.) American Political Thought (Fifth Edition). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2004. pp. 71-79.
de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
“The Declaration of Independence.” In Kenneth M. Dolbeare and Michael S. Cummings (Eds.) American Political Thought (Fifth Edition). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2004. pp. 49-50.
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 US Code, TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part II, Sec. 1448. Online at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/u...8----000-.html.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. “American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword.” In Andreas Hess (Ed.) American Social and Political Thought: A Reader. New York City: New York University Press, 2003. pp. 39-44.
Miller, Perry. “The New England Mind – From Colony to Province.” In Andreas Hess (Ed.) American Social and Political Thought: A Reader. New York City: New York University Press, 2003. pp. 76-79.
Pocock, John G. A. “The Machiavellian Moment – Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition.” In Andreas Hess (Ed.) American Social and Political Thought: A Reader. New York City: New York University Press, 2003. pp. 99-112.
Rawls, John. “Political Liberalism.” In Andreas Hess (Ed.) American Social and Political Thought: A Reader. New York City: New York University Press, 2003. pp. 171-178.
Weber, Max. “The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism.” In Andreas Hess (Ed.) American Social and Political Thought: A Reader. New York City: New York University Press, 2003. pp. 47-53.
Re: PDD's Papers and Editorials
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lesbianosaur Any takers? If enough people choose to participate, maybe Lira would sticky it? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lesbianosaur Not necessarily. To use the Weberian definition, a state is sovereign when it has a sole legitimate authority over a defined geographical territory. But the operative word here is legitimate - what defines legitimacy? An election? The mere fact that said authority has not yet been overthrown? The Zimbabwean government is surely the sole authority over a defined territory, but is it really legitimate? Opposition leaders are killed and mutilated, and elections are wrought with fraud. |
| quote: |
| Two comments - what defines a state? Is a failed state still a legitimate state and thereby protected by the provisions of the UN charter? What about a state that is not recognized by all members of the UN? Taiwan comes to mind. |
| quote: |
| And if a state fails to carry out its international obligations faithfully, does it forfeit its right to the protections outlined in points 1-5? The international community had demanded more transparency from Iraq, and Iraq had failed to give it. The Hussein regime also defied international human rights conventions on a fairly regular basis. At what point can it be said that a country does not live up to its international obligations? |
| quote: |
| Are sanctions not a violation of sovereignty under this definition? Is a UN inspection team not a violation of sovereignty? |
| quote: |
| Ok, now this is where I strongly disagree. Saddam had a monopoly of power in Iraq. How would you suggest the people rise up and overthrow the yoke of oppression when all visible opposition is not only crushed but publicly brutalized? The families of any person deemed in opposition to the regime were punished. It can hardly be stated that Iraqis were simply satisfied with the state of their affairs by virtue of not having launched a successful revolution. |
| quote: |
| And to bring another example to bear - what should be done in Darfur? You have a minority population with very little means of opposing a powerful state acting without impunity or tip of the hat to human rights against its own citizens. It is completely impossible for the Khartoum government to be overthrown from within... so should we view the inability of the population to change its government as tacit approval? I don't think so. |
| quote: |
| In Burma, the military junta brutalizes any who dare defy it - even monks! How can it be reasonably stated that Burmese citizens have the capability of deciding their own futures? I think Mill here is either outdated or wrong. |
| quote: |
| The United States has an innate belief in the power of revolution, having been borne itself out of one. But what is vastly different is that the British were not the sole purveyors of authority over the Americas... localized militias were empowered to pursue their own interests, and were turned against their British masters in the Revolution. No such apparatus exists in many of the war-torn countries of the world. Failed states exhibit complete monopolization of power for the sole expressed purpose of eliminating any future potential threat to their authority. And in addition, lest we forget our history, remember that it was only with the aid of an outside power, the French, that the American militias were able to secure a victory over Britain. |
| quote: |
| I think your argument here is not well-suited to non-interventionism, which I think is a complete abrogation of international responsibilities to human rights. Complete and total sovereignty carried out to its Nth degree is a blank check handed to despots and warlords, free to act without impunity against their own populations in ensuring no future threat to their power. That is far too dangerous. |
| quote: |
| Instead, I would argue that you, like Mill, do make a compelling argument against democracy-building. Intervention can be undertaken in two ways - it can be the apparatus of providing change directed from the bottom or orchestrated from the outside. I think intervention provides a very important purpose when it creates a ripe moment for change within a country that has failed its own people. But it is absolutely essential that control over the design of the subsequent state is handed over to the indigenous population and not dictated by an outside source. In other words, the largest mistake (in my eyes) that the United States made was not the removal of Saddam from power - he was a tyrant and could hardly be described as legitimate. The mistake was in the quest to build a democracy without deferring first to local Iraqis for their own vision and implementation of political aims and objectives. |
| quote: |
| Now, if we can just decide on a common definition of a "legitimate" state, maybe things wouldn't remain so muddled. |
| quote: |
| In any case, this was a very interesting read. Thanks for posting. |
I wrote a paper about Hitler, LOL!! I used Freudian psychology to do a little examination of Hitler's psyche. I thought I had the best subject in the class!! Hitler was the craziest dude of them all!!
THESIS: Adolf Hitler is recognized by most of the world as the very epitome of evil. He was responsible for directly or indirectly the deaths of tens of millions of people across the globe. The holocaust was the very manifestation of his paranoid hatred of the Jews. In this paper, I will try to explain his motivation for power, blood, and glory according to psychological theory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifespan Development and Personality Paper
Adolf Hitler is recognized by most of the world as the very epitome of evil. He was responsible for directly or indirectly the deaths of tens of millions of people across the globe. The holocaust was the very manifestation of his paranoid hatred of the Jews. In this paper, I will try to explain his motivation for power, blood, and glory according to psychological theory.
Adolf Hitler was born in Braunau am Inn, Austria in 1889 (Bullock, 1962). His father Alois Hitler was a customs official for the Austro-Hungarian Empire (et al). His mother Klara Pölzl was a housewife who was very fond of Adolf as a child. The household in which Adolf grew up was very dysfunctional. His father beat him regularly contributing to Adolf’s extreme introverted personality. His mother was too afraid of Alois to help when he would go into a rage and beat Adolf with a stick.
Alois Hitler had wanted his son to become a customs official just like himself. Adolf despised his father and would not submit to his demands. Adolf flunked out of high school and pursued a career as a painter. When he applied for acceptance into the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts he was rejected twice (et al). Adolf lived the life of a pauper from 1907 to 1914, and largely blamed his misfortunes on Jews.
Adolf developed a theory around which Jews were responsible for the crises of the day, for his own misfortunes, and for the socialist movements sweeping Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From this basic theory came the roots of his Nazism, pan-Germanism, and anti-Marxism.
Heredity and Environment
Adolf Hitler’s heredity plays an extremely minimal role for who he became as an adult. Though he had within him his father’s pre-disposition to anger, environment played the most crucial role in how his personality developed. The abuse suffered by Adolf from his father imprinted within him a lingering anger that could never be satisfied; much like a desire for revenge. He could not take any form of revenge on his father because he died in 1903. The most sensitive period of anyone’s life is in their formulative years as a child, and it is these years of experience which form the basis of adult personality.
The abusive dysfunction of Adolf’s young life inevitably led to scathing hatred of enemies real and imagined. He had to take revenge on those he saw as detrimental to society. One can only imagine the paranoia, fear, and anger stemming from constantly having to be afraid in your own household. For children, this way of development is abnormal, and detrimental to shaping a rational apathetic personality. Most violent criminals also grew up in circumstances similar or worse to that of Adolf Hitler’s.
Harry and Margaret Harlow showed by experiment that Sigmund Freud was correct in the notion that the most formulative years of development are in childhood. Any detrimental rearing or debilitating circumstances during these years would carry on in personality for the rest of the child’s life. This would explain why Adolf Hitler was paranoid, angry, and prone to fits of rage even with his highest ranking generals.
Optimal Parenting Practices
The optimal parenting practice for any child is one of peaceful nurture, family rules, and appropriate discipline. The parent should not pass on frustrations to the child whether it be in the form of verbal abuse or physical abuse. It is best when the child has reasonable rules to follow and structure especially in the developmental years. The child should learn the concept of boundaries of behavior and how consequences result from different behaviors.
The most appropriate discipline for children is one that does not physically harm them but demonstrates a certain behavior to be wrong. The child should be informed ahead of time the consequences to specific behaviors so the child knows what to expect in punishment, and so in the future refrains from certain behaviors. The punishment should fit the crime and never hurt the child physically or punish their self-esteem. Once the child has been punished, they have essentially paid for their misbehavior and the issue should not have a lingering effect that never leaves the child’s attention.
Theories of Personality
Trait theory developed by Gordon Allport theorizes that personality is a manifestation of what the person values most. These traits are divided into 3 rankings of importance to the personality which is cardinal traits, central traits, and secondary traits. These traits are most strongly developed in the formulative years of childhood and form the basis of adult personality traits.
Examining Adolf Hitler’s formulative years, it can be said that he had a very difficult developmental life. Anger and rebellion played a very large role in his childhood and would remain so in his adult years. These experiences led Adolf to develop cardinal traits which formed the basis of Nazi ideology. The most important cardinal trait Adolf held was a hatred of Jews. His central trait was for a social revolution in which the strongest were valued most, and the weak were expendable. His secondary trait was the act of pursuing the goals of what he valued most; the destruction of the weak so the strong could survive.
Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory states that our personalities are made up of three consciousnesses which are the id, ego, and super ego. The id mainly operates on the pleasure principle which is the desire to satisfy our pleasurable desires and limit pain irrespective of how others may be affected. Usually id is suppressed by the super ego and is very difficult to bring to the conscious. But in certain unusual cases this happens.
Adolf Hitler’s id to satisfy his sexual desires were manifested by his pronouncement that his wife was the German people. Adolf never witnessed love between his parents and so he had a very distorted notion of what normal relations were between men and women. It was impossible for Adolf to have normal relations with women, but yet he still had the id of sexual desire. The pain of his abuse and the pent up sexual frustration of Adolf’s id manifested itself in his obsessive micro-management of his Nazi Party, and the spectacularly emotional speeches he is most famous for. In effect, he suppressed his id by “marrying” the German nation, and obsessively working his political system which required his conscious attention.
References
Bullock, A. Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (Penguin Books 1962), 23.
Bullock, A. Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, 25.
Bullock, A. Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, 30-31.
I like the idea of this but all my good essays are 6,000 words!
Is there another way we could do this without clogging this thread up? Like an external site with one page per essay. This thread could then act as an index for it (plus a short discription)
I suppose we could do that here with the opening post being the index linking to the post number (altho I don't think I'll be able to fit in 6,000 words!!!)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley I like the idea of this but all my good essays are 6,000 words! Is there another way we could do this without clogging this thread up? Like an external site with one page per essay. This thread could then act as an index for it (plus a short discription) I suppose we could do that here with the opening post being the index linking to the post number (altho I don't think I'll be able to fit in 6,000 words!!!) |
What about a blog?
We can get one of them for free, and we'd be able to index the articles here too. Someone, or a few, could have the password, then we could just attach the articles to a PM and that person could upload em to the blog?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley What about a blog? We can get one of them for free, and we'd be able to index the articles here too. Someone, or a few, could have the password, then we could just attach the articles to a PM and that person could upload em to the blog? |
Re: PDD's Papers and Editorials
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lesbianosaur Any takers? If enough people choose to participate, maybe Lira would sticky it? I know I for one would be interested in reading some of the more thought-provoking things you've written for class or work, but maybe that's just the nerdy grad school student in me talking. And who knows... maybe some of the papers will in turn provoke some discussion amongst everyone else. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley What about a blog? We can get one of them for free, and we'd be able to index the articles here too. Someone, or a few, could have the password, then we could just attach the articles to a PM and that person could upload em to the blog? |
http://pddpapers.livejournal.com/
Update your bookmarks accordingly.
For now, send papers you'd like to submit to pddpapers@gmail.com - I'll work on getting those already posted up there shortly. Then we can have discussions on the individual papers via the comments there, which will be a lot more organized than having a dozen different discussions going on here in one thread.
Any suggestions? The theme is pretty cheesy - there are 300 to choose from, so if anyone has suggestions on layout or whatever, let me know.
Edit: And I will try and keep the first post in this thread updated with direct links to everyone's papers, so they are indexed here by author (or would topic be better?)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lesbianosaur http://pddpapers.livejournal.com/ Update your bookmarks accordingly. For now, send papers you'd like to submit to pddpapers@gmail.com - I'll work on getting those already posted up there shortly. Then we can have discussions on the individual papers via the comments there, which will be a lot more organized than having a dozen different discussions going on here in one thread. Any suggestions? The theme is pretty cheesy - there are 300 to choose from, so if anyone has suggestions on layout or whatever, let me know. Edit: And I will try and keep the first post in this thread updated with direct links to everyone's papers, so they are indexed here by author (or would topic be better?) |
| quote: |
| vBulletin Message The administrator has specified that you can only edit messages for 28800 minutes after you have posted. This limit has expired, so you must contact the administrator to make alterations on your message. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Unless we can get this rule changed?? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lesbianosaur http://pddpapers.livejournal.com/ Update your bookmarks accordingly. For now, send papers you'd like to submit to pddpapers@gmail.com |
Sorry for the delay - it's been a really rough week.
First post updated with the three papers I got up tonight.
THESIS: The most prolific question for any society to ask is, “What moral, social, and political order is necessary to ensure that all of society is content and happy?” The answers each society gives becomes the ideologies of communism, capitalism, republicanism, federalism, authoritarianism, religion, and a myriad of other philosophical systems to answer the question of what makes a content society.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy Analysis (1,000 words)
Moral, social, and political philosophy are all about questioning how human society operates itself according to a standard of behavior. The governing body of any society/nation must ask such philosophical questions before developing a methodology to the laws of society which are passed after such considerations. The answers each society comes up with to the questions of moral, social, and political philosophies determine the rules with which that society will bind itself to. The most prolific question for any society to ask is, “What moral, social, and political order is necessary to ensure that all of society is content and happy?” The answers each society gives becomes the ideologies of communism, capitalism, republicanism, federalism, authoritarianism, religion, and a myriad of other philosophical systems to answer the question of what makes a content society.
Moral philosophy attempts to decipher correct behavior from misbehavior. Social philosophy attempts to develop a reasoning for ethics applied to society as a whole. A moral system in which abortion is incorrect behavior is taken by social philosophy and analyzed as a question of whether an abortion is detrimental to society as a whole. Before one can determine what is correct for society, one must have a standard of ethical behavior on which to apply to society. Political philosophy takes moral and social philosophy to a practical level by actually enforcing a system of ethics on society with the purpose of creating an ethical order which benefits the society as a whole. These philosophies have their commonality in attempting to discern which societal balance of ethics and law is best for any particular society.
Moral, social, and political philosophy to differ however in the specific questions they ask. Moral philosophy does not and should not concern itself political philosophy. Questions asked by moral philosophy attempt to discern what specific behaviors can be considered right or wrong. The question of, “Is murder wrong?” is one of the central questions a moral philosopher might examine. A social philosopher on the other hand may not examine why murder is wrong per se, but they might ask, “Why is murder wrong for society?” A social philosopher will seek to question the effect of murder on society instead of simply attempting to determine murder as ethical based on a standard of morals. Social philosophy though can determine correctness or wrongfulness based on any behavior's effect on society. So examining murder under the context of social philosophy, one might say that murder is wrong because it affects society in a negative way by inducing fear of losing one's life. Political philosophy does not concern itself with attempting to discern right or wrong and should not. Rather a political philosopher will have already set a standard of ethics. This person will instead try to apply this standard of ethics on society itself to realize one's vision of governance according to a preset standard of morality and social stability. In this way, these philosophies are different.
The questions each of these philosophies pose determines the society in which we live. More importantly is the answers to those questions. An example would be, “Who should control production of goods in a market?” There are essentially three solutions:
1.The government should control all production.
2.Both government and market should control all production.
3.The market should control all production.
Morally speaking, which solution is correct? The real answer is all of them can be correct because the essential characteristic of any philosophy is its relativism. But for purposes of this example, we'll assume a capitalist system is the correct system, and so morally speaking, only solutions 2 and 3 can be morally ethical. Why? Because society is the source of demand and government can never know at all times what society demands. This mode of thinking begins to move into social philosophy in the effect each of these three solutions would have on society. Which solution(s) is right for society according to a capitalist interpretation? A social philosophy can discern that solution 1 is wrong because when government controls all production, demand of the society and thus the market is not met. An example of this is the Soviet Union. The government of the USSR deemed the military-industrial complex to be the most important aspect of production. The effect of that was an acute shortage of consumer goods which was greatly demanded by the Soviet society. This adversely affected the Soviet society as a whole and resulted in the collapse of the Soviet economy. According to a capitalist political philosophical, which solutions are correct? Again solutions 2 and 3 are correct because applying a ethical system in which the market dictates all or most production of any economy, the political philosophy would have to incorporate a market driven political system. One question a political philosopher might ask is what is the best economic model to obtain the most efficient mode of taxation for the government? A market driven economy is the most efficient economy there is and is driven by profit. That profit can be taxed. A socialist system of economics in which all production is owned by the state would inevitably result in decreased productivity and less profit.
Moral philosophy can be considered more important than social or political philosophy because in order to question what is good for society and the rules such a society must follow, one must first determine a system of ethics to build off of. How can one know which laws to legislate if there is no standard of right and wrong? How can one know what is good for society if “good” has yet to be determined? Therefore, ethics determines the philosophical system on which all societies are built.
This is one of my group papers. It's probably around 2000 - 2500 words. Edited by me for grammar, spelling, factual correctness, content, and "flow". Specifically, I wrote the introduction paragraph, Mainstream Media, and the conclusion. I was the project leader since I love Noam's work so much, so enjoy the fruits of my leadership...
THESIS: Avram Noam Chomsky is an author, linguist, lecturer, political activist, and western philosopher. He is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has contributed since the 1950's to a naturalistic interpretation of grammar, language, and psychology. Chomsky has actively participated in political philosophy in addition to his linguistic expertise starting with his criticisms of the Vietnam War. His views are central to New Left ideology in which authoritarian socialism and laissez-faire capitalism in favor of society which prevents the accumulation of resources to an elite few through either a communist elite or capitalist monopoly. This political philosophy is called Libertarian Socialism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avrim Noam Chomsky
Avram Noam Chomsky is an author, linguist, lecturer, political activist, and western philosopher. He is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has contributed since the 1950's to a naturalistic interpretation of grammar, language, and psychology. Chomsky has actively participated in political philosophy in addition to his linguistic expertise starting with his criticisms of the Vietnam War. His views are central to New Left ideology in which authoritarian socialism and laissez-faire capitalism in favor of society which prevents the accumulation of resources to an elite few through either a communist elite or capitalist monopoly. This political philosophy is called Libertarian Socialism.
Personal Life
Noam Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928 in Philadelphia Pennsylvania to a Hebrew family living in a sort of "Jewish ghetto," split into a Yiddish and Hebrew side (Harris, 1997). He exclaimed that his family brought him up "immersed Hebrew culture and literature" (Lamb, 2007). Chomsky's first language was Yiddish, but he says it was too much of a taboo for his family to speak it. Chomsky expressed pressures he experienced with Irish Catholics and anti-semitism in the mid-1930s when he stated, “I do not like to say it but I grew up with a kind of gut fear of Catholics. I knew it was irrational and got over. It was just the street experience” (Lamb, 2007).
Chomsky attended Central High School of Philadelphia and later began studying philosophy and linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania in 1945. He was educated by philosophers C. West Churchman, Nelson Goodman, and linguist Zellig Harris (Harris, 1997). Harris's teaching incorporated his findings of alterations as a mathematical examination of language structure. This structure included mappings from one subset to another in a set of sentences. Chomsky consequently reinterpreted these as procedures on the invention of a context-free grammar. Harris's political points of view were important in influencing those of Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky was cultured at the University of Pennsylvania, earning a Ph.D. degree in linguistics under the attention of American linguist Zellig Harris in 1955. Chomsky was pursuant early in life. Chomsky held an appointment from 1951 to 1955 at the Harvard University as a graduate student. He later joined the staff at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1955 (Harris, 1997) teaching French and German. Chomsky later became Institute Professor of Linguistics at MIT in 1976.
As a scholar, Noam was profoundly influenced by Zellig Harris, former Professor of Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania (Harris, 1997). Some of his research for his Masters was on the contemporary spoken Hebrew idiom. Chomsky has made a lasting repute in linguistics. It was Chomsky’s passion and humbleness to Harris’s political visions that steered him on the road as a graduate student in linguistics. Chomsky learned some of the historical beliefs of linguistics from his Hebrew scholar father William (Harris, 1997). Chomsky is most eminent for his effort on generative grammar which is generated from his attention in modern logic and arithmetical basics. Chomsky applied generative grammar to the explanation of normal languages.
Noam Chomsky lives two lives: one as a linguist and the other as a human rights activist. Chomsky is the founder of transformational-generative grammar (Harris, 1997). This is a system that transformed contemporary linguistics. Chomsky is the most frequently quoted person on the planet. Yet Chomsky does not seek supporters. He wants each person to see things for themselves, to think, and make decisions for themselves.
Libertarian Socialism
To fully understand Noam Chomsky’s stand on libertarian social, one must understand the meaning of libertarianism. It is defined as an advocate of free will, a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action (Merriam-Webster, 2007). This word and thought in particular is sometimes one and the same with anarchism which is to be without leaders. Anarchists’ school of thought is that the government is harmful and unnecessary. However, libertarian socialism is about freedom from exploitation of all means of wealth making into the hands of the leading minority of industrialists.
Noam Chomsky’s view on libertarian anarchists is stated in an interview by Kreisler (2002).
“….socialist and anti-state branch of socialism, which meant a highly organized society, completely organized and nothing to do with chaos, but based on democracy all the way through. That means democratic control of communities, of workplaces, of federal structures, built on systems of voluntary association, spreading internationally. That’s traditional anarchism. You know, anybody can have the world if they like, but that’s the mainstream of traditional anarchism.”
Chomsky feels that power is always unlawful unless it can be proven to be lawful. For instance, a parent who stops a child from running into the street is considered an example of the lawful use of power based on its justification. The child could have been killed if not prohibited by the parent. Chomsky believes that it’s the responsibility of those who exercise the power in this instance the government, to show its authority or justification of its authority.
Terrorism
David Hart (2006) quotes Chomsky as: “Even the state defines “terror” as the use of violence against civilians in order to achieve certain political aims. Chomsky then provides a lengthy list of state actions in the 20th century which qualify as terrorism (under the state’s current definition) on acts of individual terrorism (lone suicide bomber); repeated acts of terrorism (organized by terrorist groups like Al Qaida); then state terrorism which uses acts of terror on a mass scale (like bombing of civilian cities during World War II).”
Although Chomsky is aware and conceded that violence works, he believes strongly that there are constructive ways of dealing with the threat of terror. One way is to deal with the man in the mirror (America). It is never an easy task but a necessary one. In his book Failed States, The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, Chomsky states, “US and UK planners were well aware that the invasion of Iraq was likely to increase terror and WMD proliferation, as many analysts and intelligence agencies warned.” (2006, p.18)
Chomsky believes that the UN should take the lead in international crises and that America should rely on discreet and profitable measures rather than armed forces in confronting terror. Chomsky also believes it is imperative to give up the Security Council veto and that there should be a cut in military spending and substantial increase in social spending.
Peace in the Middle East
Chomsky’s general consensus is that the United States government claim to provide democracy in the Middle East is just as detrimental to Arab society as Saddam Hussein was to his own people. Chomsky stated, “The third argument that’s given, which at least has a merit of truth, is that Saddam Hussein is a monster. In fact if you listen to Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, or almost anyone who comments on this, they justify the sanctions repeatedly by saying that this man is a monster…using weapons of mass destruction against his own people in the horrendous gassing of the Kurds. True, he committed the ultimate atrocity…WITH OUR SUPPORT…..He remained a favored friend and trading partner and allay quite independently of these atrocities.” (2001) Chomsky believes that we must push for changes within the US policies that would support peace, as present policies have been fueling injustice for decades.
Mainstream Media
Chomsky has argued that inherent within private media is a systemic bias which is the anti-thesis of objective journalism. He developed the “Propaganda Model” in a 1988 book written with Edward Herman called Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. The theory postulates that a media corporation's main objective is to profit from the selling of a product. The product is the news broadcast but the customers are not the audience which watches the broadcasts. Advertisers are the greatest interest of any media broadcaster because they are the primary source of revenue for any private media company. The model postulates a series of 5 filters of media which influence the coverage of news events (1988)...
1. Ownership
2. Funding
3. Sourcing
4. Flak
5. Anti-Ideologies
The majority of the mass media is owned by a select few multi-national corporation's such as General Electric or News Corp. The first filter postulates that these companies have financial interests far exceeding simple media. If these companies encounter a news event which may be detrimental to their corporate interests, their coverage of that event will probably be censored to protect such interests. Media companies must also protect their sources of revenue which is the advertisers. News is not the product of mass media but rather their advertisements. According to the “Funding Filter” (1988), publications and broadcasts are not designed for the best method of news coverage, but rather, are designed to attract readers and viewers to their brand. Doing this enables the media company to sell more of their advertising space (which is their main product) and so ratings become much more important than news coverage.
Most media companies form a special sourcing relationship with the government, specifically, the White House and Pentagon. The relationship can best be described as symbiotic; I will help you if you help me. In the event a journalist decides to challenge government policy by asking tough questions to policy officials, they are more likely to be shut out of future press conferences or denied future interviews. Most avoid asking such questions to preserve their place in future press conferences and interview time. The government or Pentagon becomes the source of facts while the journalist merely writes them down for publication. This is in detriment to objective journalism.
Flak is a term used to describe any backlash of a publication or broadcast which goes against the status quo. This is important because in the event a journalist publishes a highly critical piece which criticizes a powerful corporate or governmental interest, the flak received could be influential enough to derail the entire media company. So publications or broadcasts must be censored to protect the company from special interest groups, lobby groups, shareholder petitions, FCC inquiries, etc. This is one more filter of news coverage.
Anti-ideologies compose the 5th filter and probably the most important. Mass media companies take advantage of the public's fears against real, potential, or exaggerated dangers. Anti-communism was the ideology which took advantage of the people's fear of the Soviet Union, and was used as a means to silence those critical of elite interests as communist sympathizers. Today, the anti-ideology is Islamism. Little coverage is given in the mass media of very important Muslim grievances against the West. Media companies such as Fox News take advantage of the public's fear of terrorism and uses it to justify all American interests in the Middle East as a “War on Terror”.
The propaganda model in essence labels all mass media corporation's as capitalist propaganda and justifies this conclusion with the premises of 5 filters which news coverage must fall through before publication or broadcast. The solution to such propaganda is independent media such as the BBC, PBS, and a myriad of news organizations which are publicly funded.
Vietnam War
Many especially those who adamantly opposed the communist regime in any capacity would regard Chomsky as an unpatriotic anti-Vietnam war activist bordering on treason. Conversely, given the fact that over half the country passionately opposed the Vietnam war efforts, Chomsky would have been lauded as an enlightened diplomatic facilitator of peace by others. Whether or not Chomsky pledged to treason or allegiance is open to interpretation.
In 1970 Chomsky visited North Vietnam and upon his arrival he immediately made an amiable connection with fellow anti-war activists. This was a suspicious gesture during an era when America , the leader of the democratic world, is at war with all communism. He expresses sympathy for the plight of the Vietnamese while condemning the actions of the United States. Chomsky makes some pretty serious indictments when he alleges that America is guilty of barbarism, imperialism, and is incapable of anything greater than campaigns of destruction. He continues by stating that a nation that has not advanced beyond its primitive disposition of savagery has no place in the 20th century. Chomsky’s sympathy eventually transforms to that of remorse as he laments, “We are deeply grateful to you that you permit us to be part of your brave and historical struggle. We hope that there will continue to be strong bonds of comradeship between the people of Vietnam and the many Americans who wish you success and who detest with all of their being the hateful activities of the American government.” (Starr, 2005, ¶5)
He effectively dehumanizes the nation by reducing it to a war machine. In retrospect one must consider the legitimacy of Chomsky’s claims; perhaps America’s role in the Vietnam War is far more suspect than anyone other than Chomsky is willing to concede. It is interesting to note that according to Chomsky, “Kennedy involved US forces in counterinsurgency, bombing, and "population control" [measures] (1975, ¶2). This begs the question of the rumored use of excessive deadly force in scenarios where deadly force was unwarranted and completely unjustifiable. Additionally, it also suggests that there may be some merit to the alleged December bombings, search-and-destroy missions to name a few. With that in mind it is evident Chomsky’s anti-America sentiment can be argued from many different vantage points dependent upon whether or not these claims can be substantiated.
It is a foregone conclusion the Vietnam War era has left its mark on the world especially in American history. The same could be said of the Vietnamese who have had to endure destruction to the point of obliteration. We may never know the unequivocal with absolute certainty; nevertheless, Chomsky challenged the status quo even though many considered it subversive to the country.
East Timor
Timor is a small Southeast Asian island slightly larger than the state of Maryland located 1,000 miles south of the Philippines and about 400 miles northwest of Australia. It is divided into two parts, the West being part of Indonesia while the East gained independence from Portugal in the mid 1970’s. In 1975 Indonesia launched a full scale invasion of East Timor using the pre-text that it was maintaining order due to civil war, the real motive was to take advantage of a presumably easy target adding to their territory and gaining resources, namely oil (Albert, Chomsky & Shalom, 1999). As a political activist and humanitarian, Chomsky spoke out publicly on his suspicions of U.S. involvement on the invasion of East Timor. According to Chomsky, Gerald Ford and his administration gave a green light to Indonesia to invade even supplying 90 percent of the weaponry used by the Indonesia army despite a U.S. law that bans the use of military aid for offensive purposes. The quiet support continued even into the Clinton administration. Over two decades, the East Timorese suffered from such atrocities as torture, rape, starvation, and countless deaths. Chomsky believes that due to lack of media coverage, the war raged on unnoticed by the public, otherwise, there would have been a more organized resistance and protests to pressure the governments into stopping the war.
“By the mid-1990s there were substantial organizations in many countries, and they were beginning to have an impact. The issue was finally being covered in the mainstream media, if not always accurately” (Albert, Chomsky & Shalom, 1999, pg.1). Under intense pressure by East Timor activists, the U.S. Congress was increasingly placing restrictions on U.S. military aid to Indonesia, often evaded, however, by the Administration. Finally, mass demonstrations in Indonesia, financial crisis, and massive corruption combined in 1998 to force Indonesia’s leader, Suharto, from office. Following a change of power a referendum was approved by the next elected President of Indonesia under international scrutiny which would allow the people of East Timor to vote on either independence or to accept Indonesian rule. Chomsky states that in the months leading up to the elections, Indonesian militia’s turned up the heat on the East Timorese in an effort to intimidate them and dissuade their votes. But on August 30, 1999, in an astonishing display of courage, virtually the entire population of East Timor went to the polls with about eighty percent voting for independence. “Having failed to cow the Timorese people into accepting Indonesian rule, the army and its militias then proceeded to unleash a ferocious attack on the civilian population, displacing hundreds of thousands, killing an unknown number, but certainly thousands, burning, and looting” (Albert, Chomsky & Shalom, 1999, pg.1).
Today, East Timor is still a long way from becoming a free standing and self supporting nation, but thanks to outspoken activists such as Noam Chomsky and other brave journalists, the ongoing atrocities of the last 25 years have finally subsided and an independent democratic government established.
Conclusion
Noam Chomsky's critical analysis of today's current events is one of the definitive world views shaping today's political spectrum. According to a recent survey by the Institute for Scientific Information, only Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, and Freud are cited more often in academic journals than Chomsky, who edges out Hegel and Cicero (Hughes). Chomsky is one of the definitive authorities on progressive liberal politics. The realization of such a view may bring about a more fair capitalism and reduce conflict around the world.
References
Albert, M., Chomsky, N. & Shalom, S.R., (1999). East Timor Questions and Answers.
Retrieved April 6, 2008 from: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199910--02.htm
Chomsky, N. (2006). Failed States, The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (1st ed., pp.18, 262). New York, NY 10010: Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & Company, LLC.
Chomsky, N. A Special Supplement: The Meaning of Vietnam. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19750612.htm
Harris, Z. “The Transformation of Capitalist Society”, published 1997.
Hughes, S. “Speech!”, The Pennsylvania Gazette, July/August 2001.
Kreisler, H. (2002). Activism, Anarchism and Power. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/pe...msky-con2.html.
Lamb, B. “Book TV: Interview with Noam Chomsky”, June 1, 2000 on Book TV C-Span.
Starr, T. (2005). Noam Chomsky: Viet Cong Cheerleader. Retrieved April 4, 2008 from
http://www.no-treason.com/Starr/3.html
First post and http://pddpapers.livejournal.com both updated with one of Krypton's papers and one of my own. I'll try and get the Chomsky one up tonight or tomorrow.
If anyone else would like to submit a paper, you can either post it here or email pddpapers@gmail.com and I'll get it up when I can (email might make me work faster since sometimes I miss seeing this thread's updates).
Cheers.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.