Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts

Sunday, February 24, 2008

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Authoritarianism: Puritanism, Democracy, and Society


The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Authoritarianism: Puritanism, Democracy, and Society
by Milan Zafirovski

# Hardcover: 337 pages
# Publisher: Springer; 1 edition (May 11, 2007)

This book explores the historical and contemporary relationships of Protestant Puritanism to political and social authoritarianism. It focuses on Puritanisms original, subsequent and modern influences on and legacies in political democracy and civil society within historically Puritan Western societies, with emphasis on Great Britain and particularly America, from the 17th to the 21th century.

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Authoritarianism: Puritanism, Democracy and Society's importance and novelty lie in its original theoretical argument and empirical demonstration that Puritanism constitutes or reproduces political-social authoritarianism rather than liberal-secular political democracy and free civil society, contrary to the conventional wisdom in Puritan societies, especially America. The books methodological approach is thoroughly interdisciplinary by integrating methods, theories and data in sociology with those in other social sciences such as political science, history and economics. In addition, the book uses a comparative-historical method through comparisons of Western (and other) societies at various points of history in terms of the impact of Puritanism on authoritarianism.

go!

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Schumpeter - Capitalism, Socialism And Democracy




Joseph A Schumpeter - Capitalism, Socialism And Democracy

Chapter One

Marx The Prophet

It was not by a slip that an analogy from the world of religion was I permitted to intrude into the title of this chapter. There is more than analogy. In one important sense, Marxism is a religion. To the believer it presents, first, a system of ultimate ends that embody the meaning of life and are absolute standards by which to judge events and actions; and, secondly, a guide to those ends which implies a plan of salvation and the indication of the evil from which mankind, or a chosen section of mankind, is to be saved. We may specify still further: Marxist socialism also belongs to that subgroup which promises paradise on this side of the grave. I believe that a formulation of these characteristics by an hierologist would give opportunities for classification and comment which might possibly lead much deeper into the sociological essence of Marxism than anything a mere economist can say.

The least important point about this is that it explains the success of Marxism. Purely scientific achievement, had it even been much more perfect than it was in the case of Marx, would never have won the immortality in the historical sense which is his. Nor would his arsenal of party slogans have done it. Part of his success, although a very minor part, is indeed attributable to the barrelful of white-hot phrases, of impassioned accusations and wrathful gesticulations, ready for use on any platform, that he put at the disposal of his flock. All that needs to be said about this aspect of the matter is that this ammunition has served and is serving its purpose very well, but that the production of it carried a disadvantage: in order to forge such weapons for the arena of social strife Marx had occasionally to bend, or to deviate from, the opinions that would logically follow from his system. However, if Marx had not been more than a purveyor of phraseology, he would be dead by now. Mankind is not grateful for that sort of service and forgets quickly the names of the people who write the librettos for its political operas.

But he was a prophet, and in order to understand the nature of this achievement we must visualize it in the setting of his own time. It was the zenith of bourgeois realization and the nadir of bourgeois civilization, the time of mechanistic materialism, of a cultural milieu which had as yet betrayed no sign that a new art and a new mode of life were in its womb, and which rioted in most repulsive banality. Faith in any real sense was rapidly falling away from all classes of society, and with it the only ray of light (apart from what may have been derived from Rochdale attitudes and saving banks) died from the workman's world, while intellectuals professed themselves highly satisfied with Mill's Logic and the Poor Law.

Now, to millions of human hearts the Marxian message of the terrestrial paradise of socialism meant a new ray of light and a new meaning of life. Call Marxist religion a counterfeit if you like, or a caricature of faith--there is plenty to be said for this view--but do not overlook or fail to admire the greatness of the achievement. Never mind that nearly all of those millions were unable to understand and appreciate the message in its true significance. That is the fate of all messages. The important thing is that the message was framed and conveyed in such a way as to be acceptable to the positivistic mind of its time--which was essentially bourgeois no doubt, but there is no paradox in saying that Marxism is essentially a product of the bourgeois mind. This was done, on the one hand, by formulating with unsurpassed force that feeling of being thwarted and ill treated which is the auto-therapeutic attitude of the unsuccessful many, and, on the other hand, by proclaiming that socialistic deliverance from those ills was a certainty amenable to rational proof.

Observe how supreme art here succeeds in weaving together those extra-rational cravings which receding religion had left running about like masterless dogs, and the rationalistic and materialistic tendencies of the time ineluctable for the moment, which would not tolerate any creed that had no scientific or pseudo-scientific connotation. Preaching the goal would have been ineffectual; analyzing a social process would have interested only a few hundred specialists. But preaching in the garb of analysis and analyzing with a view to heartfelt needs, this is what conquered passionate allegiance and gave to the Marxist that supreme boon which consists in the conviction that what one is and stands for can never be defeated but must conquer victoriously in the end. This, of course, does not exhaust the achievement. Personal force and the flash of prophecy work independently of the contents of the creed. No new life and no new meaning of life can be effectively revealed without. But this does not concern us here.

Something will have to be said about the cogency and correctness of Marx's attempt to prove the inevitability of the socialist goal. One remark, however, suffices as to what has been called above his formulation of the feelings of the unsuccessful many. It was, of course, not a true formulation of actual feelings, conscious or subconscious. Rather we could call it an attempt at replacing actual feelings by a true or false revelation of the logic of social evolution. By doing this and by at tributing--quite unrealistically--to the masses his own shibboleth of "class consciousness," he undoubtedly falsified the true psychology of the workman (which centers in the wish to become a small bourgeois and to be helped to that status by political force), but in so far as his teaching took effect he also expanded and ennobled it. He did not weep any sentimental tears about the beauty of the socialist idea.

3ünü de sallayın ayva tatlısı hepsine takar, ısmarlayan var mı?

Friday, September 28, 2007

Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Europe 1850-2000


Forging Democracy The History of the Left in Europe 1850-2000
by Geoff Eley


In present-day circumstances, the political and social viability of the Left is often challenged or overlooked. This is especially true when evaluating popular opinions about roots of widespread democracy in Europe. In order to respond to these misconceptions, Professor Geoff Eley, the Sylvia Thrupp Collegiate Professor of Comparative History here at the University, has provided an impressive and comprehensive explanation of the role of the Left in his new book "Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Europe 1850-2000." I was fortunate enough to be able to ask him a few questions about the book, his motivations for writing it, and what he saw for the future of the Left in Europe.

The Michigan Daily: What were your motivations for producing an account of the Left in Europe and do they include dispelling any popular opinions about the roots of European democracy?

Professor Eley: I wanted to reassert the importance of the Left in the complicated process of producing democratic gains during the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly because, in most people's minds, the Left is identified more with communist and socialist movements. Since all of the changes in the 1980s, there is not much of a legitimate hearing for these kinds of political ideas. In this unfavorable political climate, I wanted to reaffirm the importance of the Left for those political struggles and processes that resulted in the most significant democratic gains of the 20th century.

MD: What are your personal experiences with the Left and how do you feel that this impacted your understanding?

PE: I grew up in the 1950s and 60s, extremely conscious of the ways in which democratic rights, civil rights, and social benefits had really been the result of broadly-based popular desires and mobilizations, particularly politics that came out of the 1930s and 40s. The good things about the society in which I grew up in came from both the strong desire to never let the Great Depression be repeated, and on the other hand, to never let the strength of democratic institutions be threatened again as they were by the rise of Fascism. Becoming an adult in the 1960s and acquiring my political identity as a student, I already had a strong sense of this history.

MD: One of your primary focuses is the history of Germany? Did you place special emphasis on German movements in your book?

PE: My major field is German history but it was very important to me in writing this book that it would be a general European history. I really wanted to build an argument about Europe as a whole while drawing on different parts of the continent for different stages of the book. Having said that, the histories of some countries do have a particular centrality.

MD: What do you think about the European Left in present-day circumstances?

PE: Well, these are not socialist parties in the old sense at all. In one way, they couldn't be because the political agenda has been so profoundly reshaped. Now those parties are de-radicalized and very centrist in a way that's extraordinarily moderate and unambitious. They operate with reduced public sectors, extensive privatization, and economic deregulation. It seems to me that if they are to live up to their claims to remain socialist parties, they have to develop more creative ways of ensuring public goods and services become attractive goals again.

bourdieu: bize solun solu lazım