Marx Questions

1. What would Marx do about the people who are not willing to fulfill "unwanted jobs" and who would he make fulfill those jobs if people do not volunteer?

2. What is Marx's reason as to why people are less willing to help people in different societies and countries that do not have a close relationship with a person as a family member would have to that person and what would he about those people less willing to help?

Question "Marx"

I still do not understand how everyone can simply follow their passion, what they enjoy doing most, and still create a functioning productive society. I mean, yes, it would be wonderful if all of our passions could be careers, but wouldn’t we be left without anyone to do the dirty work? We can guess, but do we really know what Marx would say?

If we decide to create a society based upon “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” wouldn’t some exploit the system? What if I decided that I didn’t really want to work and then made up some reason that I did not have the ability to work anymore, I would still get everything I needed? Then how is that fair? If everyone was trying their hardest, it would be fair, but how can you judge that?

p.s. I love Marx's last name....it makes for fun titles!

Many Questions

How is it plausible for a communist society to be run in large nation? Does communism need a leader? If so who will be the leader and how will he or she be chosen? After, he or she has been chosen what is his or her exact job? Will he or she have to follow certain restrictions or laws? What happens if the leader infringes upon the rights, happiness, and good of the community? How will the people be able to overthrow the government?

How exactly is the society supposed to move from a capitalist to a communist one? Do the proletariats simply overthrow the bourgeois by war or something more? I understand it must be gradual as Marx alludes to in Critique of the Gotha Program, but I do not understand how exactly it can move to a communist society. If he wants to convince everyone to move to a communist society, I would sure hope he has answers on how exactly to get there.

Pirates- 8 vs. Phillies- 2 Lets go Bucs!!

1. If capitalism is just a step to communism, then why did communism fail in the U.S.S.R?
2. Communism seems to be a lot of give and take between citizens of the country, but what if someone with intentions of taking over a country rises up? How does Marx plan to deal with people like Hitler in the world?

two questions

1) If capitalism truly makes all of these "fake wants" then in communism, what is that is really going to drive the economy? Why would there be any increase in the GDP of a country without different products to buy?
2) What did the U.S.S.R. do wrong that led to their collapse?

Questions, Questions, Questions

1. Marx comments on how capitalism was necessary to progress to our current spot in history.  With capitalism comes a sense of individual responsibility.  But with the rise of communism, there is an emphasis on group well-being.  What will contribute to the switch in mentality?  What will make workers (and then bosses) change from thinking only of themselves to thinking about the groups' well-being?

2. Communism comes about and everyone is free to follow their true desires.  But I don't have any desires to follow.  I like watching television, listening to my iPod and eating potato chips on my couch.  I frankly don't care about anything.  Since everything is taken care of for me in a communist state, what incentives do I now have to do anything with my life?  Why's to stop me from being a bump on a log until I die?

What's a question?

What is to stop the bourgeois from uprising against the proletariat if and when the proletariat successfully revolutionizes?

Typically in a capitalist society, the more something costs the better quality it is. So the more you pay for a doctor, the better that doctor is and the doctor gets more intensive to stay as good as he is. What is to stop doctors from not caring or from doing worse work when they are not getting paid in a communist society?

1. I think one of the main questions is what Jessica said in class. What happens when people have to perform jobs that they dont' want to? Wouldn't the quality of their product go down when people are doing things they dont want to do? I know some people may acutally get jobs that they are passionate about, but what happens to the rest of them?

2. I also believe Marx has to elaborate more on how a worker who is smater than another gets paid more for working the same amount of time. I don't understand how he figures that worker the same amount of time is unequal labor. Yes the smarter worker may be producing more, but the other worker would have to put in more effort during that time period.

unanswered Qs

1. Once everyone is equal, would this inherently stop people from "breaking the law"? Would people still steal from others, even if we supposedly shared everything? What would happen to those that did continue to break the law?

2. Does Marx's view of an equal society apply to everyone, such as women and Blacks?

3. Marx mainly focused on the gradation of society in terms of how much money one makes. But what about the separation of groups in terms of religion? What would happen to religion in a communist world?

Yeah, I thought of 3....

Two Reoccurring Questions

1) After the revolution is successfully achieved, and the proletariat is in power, where do we go from here?  What shape does society take and what is it's long term goal as a society?  What is the communist society's driving force?

2) Could a philosopher, such as Karl Marx, even exist in a society portrayed by himself?  Once the revolution is achieved, and society is at its peak, what is the point of philosophy in general?  

Hey Bud, I got something to ask you.

Marx claims that everyone can make something for themselves. My sister's fiance is a theoretical physicist. That means that he thinks for a living and every once in a while he writes something down. What would Marx say to this? Yes, he is making something in a sense, but if we were all to live in a community of contribution, wouldn't other people see him as a burden since breakthroughs are only made once every couple decades?

I also want Marx to answer to the fact that there are some people who cannot contribute the the community due to mental health issues, or physical limitations. What do we have these people do? Just as above, the rest of the community may see them as dead weight, dragging them down. If that happens, people could begin to selectively kill those who could not contribute and a second form of the Holocaust could begin.

I would want to hear a reaction on these two topics from Marx.

blog assignment

Ok, so I have a couple of questions for Karl Marx.
In capitalism, people are given individual freedoms, or it is claimed that they are. This individual freedom is the driving force for acting on self interest and producing captital. My question is does Karl Marx believe of recognize INDIVIDUAL freedom/free will? I would like to add how his writing suggests almost as if people are forced into certain positions, customs, and ways of living through some sort of brainwashing of society.
Everything that Karl Marx has written and explained deals with society as a whole, and what is fair/unfair for the community. Going along with the common theme of CIE, does Karl Marx endorse the idea that human beings have certain unalienable rights? Individually? In extension to this question I would like to add how Locke was a certain way in explaining how people have rights, but Marx does not take this route. He certainly would not use God to explain this, but most probably Darwinian Evolution. (Survival of the Fittest?)

Questions for Karl Marx

1) Does capitalism truly distort the wants of the people?
2) What is the ideal structure and functionality of a Communistic society/government.

Remaining questions for Marx

In theory, Communism sounds like a nice idea. However, it would never work if implemented in an entire country. One question I still have for Marx would be how he would go about filling all the necessary, but perhaps less desirable job spots. Marx asserted that if people were allowed to fulfill their passions work would get done. I am not arguing this. If individuals had the opportunity to pursue their interests, whether they be writing, acting, painting some work would get done, namely new books would be written, new movies would be made, and new paintings would be painted. However, unfortunately new books, movies, and paintings do not run a society. Sadly, it is necessary to have people working on assembly lines, disposing of garbage, and cleaning restrooms. Without these ‘menial jobs’ our society would not function. There would be very few goods being produced, as most require the use of the assembly line. Garbage would pile up and pollute cities and towns. Likewise restrooms would become health hazards. Marx believes that there would be people who would remain in these jobs because they are happy with them, or perhaps they would do it for the benefit of society. First of all, it is impossible that every garbage disposal person views their job as his/her passion and if presented with the option, all would choose to stay in their jobs instead of pursuing an interest he/she might have. Likewise, in regard to Marx’s second statement regarding continuing to work out of an altruistic action, I also do not believe this is realistic. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to work in what might be considered a menial job all day every week for the benefit of the greater good without some sort of further personal gain. Secondly, how would these jobs be appropriated? Who would decide who becomes the janitor and who becomes the man or woman who works in a cubicle all day? Again not many would be willing to volunteer, thus someone would have to divide up these jobs. The problem, however, then might arise when trying to decide who has the skill or the physical capacity to carry out some of these jobs. In addition, since all of these jobs clearly must still be done in order to keep our society running, when will there be time for people to pursue their passions. These jobs take time, and to properly perform these jobs I don’t believe that it would be possible for everyone to have the time to pursue their interests. How would the time ratio then be any different from what Marx is proposing it is in a capitalistic society? Because of all of these problems that I see, it would be impossible for communism to be implemented upon an entire country. I’m not sure how Marx would reason this is possible due to all of the evidence presented against this idea, and especially because of all the countries that have tried and failed in the implementation of communism. Finally, the question still remains, how would Marx propose to fill the jobs that people don’t have a passion for and won’t do even out of altruism for the greater good?

History Lesson

My most pressing question for Karl Marx’s theory is how does one make this system work? History has given three prime examples of the despotic rule that never shifted over: Mao’s China, Lenin and Stalin’s USSR, and Castro’s Cuba. Each situation has seen a complete inequality between the ruling despotic body and the common people. There has only ever been one true Marxist with power, Che Guevara, but he had no desire to run a country. Mankind has been unable to so far create equality between its ruling party and common citizens. This leads me to believe that perhaps a despotic parent to slap the country in line is not the best way to run the government, which turns back to question how this system is to be ruled? It was brought up in class that perhaps a purely democratic system of governing would work but that is impossible based on the pure size of a country. Not only would having the huge majority vote on every single action the ruling system makes would be absurd; nothing would ever get done and it is irresponsible to have those who know nothing about economics vote on the technicalities economic plan; but the majority is not always the most intelligent person to listen to. In 2003, the vast majority of Americans thought it was a good idea to go to war with Iraq, yet looking back this was a poor choice. Even literally every Senator but one voted that we should enter Iraq, the debate was over when. That one who voted against it is now president. Sometimes the view of an insightful few can be far wiser than the emotional temperance of the majority. So if pure democracy is not the answer either, what is? That is my first question to Marx.
My next involves motivation of the common worker, which Marx can make a greater case for even though I am still not entirely convinced. What is to motivate the worker to do the less desirable jobs? If the government will require everyone to share this job in shifts from time to time, would that not completely diminish the efficiency of these respective fields? Also, if people are required to do this mass amount of menial labor, presumably the amount of boring and tedious jobs outnumbers the unbridled passions a man has in life. Therefore, if a man found himself devoting 80% of his time to menial jobs and only 20% to his passion, is that not the same situation we are in inside capitalism? How would Marx avoid this? Not to mention the very narrow spectrum of passions the vast majority of people have. Mostly people want to be actors or athletes or writers, sure there will be a small minority of people whose passion is scrubbing toilets but they will be far outnumbered by the majority of the former. Perhaps I am a pessimist but I can just not see this form of government not falling apart or the masses losing morale within the system. Personally I have read Marx many times, studied the Bolshevik Revolution numerous times and am a huge Che Guevara fan, but each time I can just not see this form of government working. My conditioning may just make me so, or perhaps I am greedy, but I just cannot see it working.

Blog Assn #12: 2 Questions on Marx

Please post two unanswered questions you have about the Marx readings by 8:00 PM on Thursday, Feb. 26th.

marx

Marx holds a couple of different views on capitalism. One thing that Mark recognizes as something that is positive about capitalism is that it demands that there constantly be a need for intelligence. In capitalism there is also competition going on, someone always needs to out compete someone else in order for the market to truly thrive and in order for a business to be able to compete there has to be products that are newer than others and better than others so that the consumers will want to buy them. There also needs to be a faster way to produce the products that are in high demand and in order to fix these problems there needs to be new inventions, new ways of doing this, and a different way to think. However, one of the big problems with capitalism is that not only does it create competition between producers but also between classes. There are large differences between what people are getting paid which creates a larger gap between economic classes. For example, in today’s society one large economic issue that we are beginning to face is that the middle class is becoming smaller and smaller and now economic classes are more clean cut like either you are rich or you are poor and that’s a big problem. Another problem with capitalism is that it needs many different countries to also become capitalist so that there are always different markets to compete with.

Oh Yes!

Karl Marx right in the beginning of the book states that he does not like the class systems that capitalism brings about. That the oppressed and the oppressor always get in arguments which result in a revolution, but in the end the only thing that gets resolved is that the classes get changed around again. He also seems to have a problem with how the classes get represented. That the bourgeoisie are the only ones that the state cares about after the development of the modern industry. Karl Marx has also believes that capitalism has made people only care about their own self interest and just worry about themselves. However, Marx does give capitalism some credit for the things that it does. He mentions that "The bourgeoisie…draws all…nations into civilization. It compels all nations…to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image" and with all the competition it has spurred new inventions and given people incentive to learn more. Although Marx does mention some good point of Capitalism, he mainly disagrees with it and tries to deter people from believing in it.

this was fun to read...

Karl Marx has many dislikes of Capitalism. Marx starts off in the Communist Manifesto talking about opposition and class rivalry. He thinks that these class struggles will ultimately create internal tensions in society which will lead to destruction. He also thinks that Capitalism takes inspiring jobs, such as doctors, lawyers, and priests, and turns them into wage-laborers. Family sentiment has disappeared and has been replaced by strictly money relations. All people are simply instruments of labor, and as soon as people earn money from their employers, they lose it to their landlords. Marx strives for a society with equal ranking, where everyone works for themselves and there is no gradation of classes. Marx believes that just as capitalism replaced feudalism, communism will replace capitalism. Communism would lead to a stateless, classless society. Marx thinks that the bourgeois society is in the process of turning on itself and that over-production is threatening to end the bourgeois society. The fact that productive forces are restrained by the bourgeoisie cause many crises for the society. And as the capitalists try to fix these crises, more problems arise and reduce their chances to prevent future ones. So, the bourgeoisie ultimately hurt themselves when they took over feudalism. Capitalism exploits the workers and needs to constantly be expanding so the Capitalists can be in control everywhere. On the other hand, the expansion has led to many great discoveries and has created an increase of knowledge and technology, which Marx likes. I believe another part of Capitalism that Marx likes is the proletariat, mostly because he thinks the proletariat will overcome the bourgeoisie and end capitalism. But as we all know, capitalism is still how we do things these days. Nice try Marx.

Marxing Capitialism

When Karl Marx speaks of capitalism, not everything he says is bad like one might think. Instead, Marx finds some benefits to capitalism. One of the perks he finds is that capitalism helps release countries from the grips of feudalism and other states of poverty by increasing infrastructure and making it possible for anybody to earn money. Marx also gives praise for capitalism and the fact that it released the global economy and made way for rapid development across the world. He even says that capitalism helped paved the way for the modern industrial era, brought forth by the wrold-trade that was quickly developing due to the discovery of America. However, here the praise stops as quickly as Marx had started. He quickly shows that all these good things had extremely negative effects on the social environment of the world. While feudalistic societies were eliminated, they just created larger class issues. Anybody could earn money, but not everyone was able to earn the same amount of money. When Marx claims that larger class issues were created, he is speaking of the fact that individual class battles did not disappear. Instead, they were absorbed into the larger problem that began to face people. High, middle, and low classes developed and mobility between classes was limited. He complains that the low class people got stuck in there position. No matter how hard they tried, the fact that they were low class meant that they were only ever awarded low-paying, menial jobs. Marx pointed this out as a downfall of capitalism.

Karl Marx and Capitalism

Karl Marx acknowledges the positive effects of capitalism. Marx explains that the bourgeoisie has expanded into all areas of the world due to its need of a constantly expanding market for its products. This expansion of capitalism has created a competition between other countries. As a result, more and more countries are adopting the bourgeois mode of production. Marx says, “The bourgeoisie…draws all…nations into civilization. It compels all nations…to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image” (8). This competition also explains the reason why there was a sudden increase in knowledge and inventions that help assist with the labor. Another positive thing that Marx relates with capitalism is the fact that the bourgeoisie “has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together” (9). Marx demonstrates that capitalism has lead to an increase in technology of productive forces to drive labor.
On the other hand, Karl Marx also acknowledges the negative effects of capitalism. One thing that Marx does not like about capitalism is that is leads to overproduction and this overproduction seem to destroy business. Marx writes, “The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property” (11). Marx also does not agree with the idea that in capitalism, the production of the workers is not equally shared between producer and consumer. Now that there are more means of production through technology and other inventions, the working class is being driven out. Marx explains, “Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman” (12). Karl Marx’s answer to this would be for the working class to unite and drive out capitalism.

High Marx in some areas, Low Marx in others

In the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto, Marx both admits to certain benefits of capitalism as well as what he believes to be the pieces of capitalism that are disadvantages. One of the first things he says is that capitalism has not done away with class oppression; rather it has just transformed it. Marx does admit that capitalism has induced rapid development in areas such as foreign markets, the colonization of America, trade amongst colonies, navigation, and commerce. Due to this rapid development, the bourgeoisie was able to gain great political sway, and thus make changes such as tearing down the feudal ties that had bound men to their ‘natural superiors’. However, although Marx admits to the rapid development capitalism has brought about; he does discuss certain disadvantages he believes to have been caused by this development. He believes that capitalism causes people to act only in self-interest. In addition he believes capitalism is to blame for the loss of “heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.” Marx asserts that capitalism has made it so that personal worth has begun to be measured in an exchange value. Likewise, Marx believes that capitalism has stripped away the sentimental values of family and translated them into money values. One aspect of capitalism Marx seems to approve of is trade. He mentions how the bourgeoisie has drawn uncivilized areas into civilization through the means of trade. In addition, the bourgeoisie has ‘rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.’ A main problem with capitalism, in Marx’s eyes is the grave disservice that has been done to the proletarians, or the working class. Due to the fact that the working class depends entirely upon finding work which depends entirely upon the worth of their labor, the proletarians are exposed to every fluctuation of the market and competition. As the proletariats try to fight back, competition grows, and the resulting commercial crises make the workers’ wages even more fluctuating. In conclusion, Marx states that the bourgeoisie is unfit to be the ruling class in society because it is incompetent to ‘assure an existence to its slave [the proletariats] within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him…its existence is no longer compatible with society.’

blog assignment #11

Well, ok. Marx begins his manifesto with a history of the oppressor and the oppressed. The Bourgeoisie and therefore capitalism in general has aided the destruction of some of the other feudal classes. These feudal classes were controlling the free market, and with time, the market became free: capitalist. Marx shares this optimistic spirit---that change is good, that breaking away from oppression and control is evolutionary, therefore better.
A second advantage to capitalism is the sudden increase in invention, knowledge, and civilization. This “boom” has created a global market, a chance for countries around the word to make ties, where they before relied mostly on local markets. This boom has also made many barbaric countries into civilized, producing countries. World trade encouraged by Capitalism requires them to do so.
Capitalism has aided the destruction of some classes, but there remains a class system still. Marx has made a comment about the wizard’s own spells are now going to lead the wizard to destruction. The bone that Marx has to pick with capitalism is that there is a great amount of oppression between the owners of production and the laborers. The laborers, though far greater in number, are treated as poorly as possible. As Marx points out, the laborers are not seen as people, but as a means to a dollar sign. There is a comment made that the owners only see these people as extensions of the machinery they work. This is inhumane and it parallels slavery. Marx also points out that the laborers are doing the majority of the work, while the owners of production are able to make the most profit simply by owning the machinery. And the laws made by society side with the owners of production. Societal views, governmental leaders, aristocrats, and the church are all slanted and brainwashing---another means of control.

M-A-R-X MARX!

Marx does see positives in capitalism. He says that capitalism helps civilize the uncivilized nations and that it creates towns and nations. Marx also states that capitalism “rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life” (59). This means that instead of everyone being so far apart and not learning from one another, they are now closer together because of cities and can expand their knowledge from their own experiences. Marx also acknowledges that capitalism created “more massive and more colossal productive forces that have all preceding generations together” (59). Marx states that through capitalism nations have grown in knowledge and technology.
Marx, being the communist he is, sees flaws in capitalism as well. He claims that capitalism creates social stratification by creating classes based on economic standing. He thinks that those with less money and poor social standing will be subjected to worse jobs with no upward mobility. They will not get good wages and not be able to fend for themselves in a capitalist world. He believes that shopkeepers and handymen and tradesmen will become less profitable because they cannot compete with “Modern Industry”. In order for capitalism to fall Marx thinks that the lower class will have to rise up and try to overthrow the upper class so that they [the lower class] can impose their power.

X "Marx" the Spot

Based on the first section of The Communist Manifesto, Marx has very few things he likes about capitalism. He admits that many great things have been created as a result of capitalism; these great achievements even “surpassing Egyptian pyramids [and] Roman aqueducts” (58). Marx also compliments capitalism on its ability of being more productive than all the generations that have preceded it. In addition, Marx is also lauds capitalism’s ability to rid these nations of the society of feudalism. Despite his few praises for capitalism, Marx finds that overall it is lacking in several areas. He reveals that capitalism easily aids the monetary and productive growth of a society, but is fundamentally without any constraints on the exploitation of the working class, or proletariat. The bourgeoisie use everyone and anyone who can work; any age, race or gender. Also, the proletariats are simply considered an extension of the machine they work because of the type of industrialized labor they must perform. Therefore, the lower class are not seen as individuals or humans, but simply instruments of labor, to be used at whatever age or condition and disposed of when they can no longer work. This work is also so lacking in skill, that they lose much of their intellectual abilities, simply adding to the debasement of the working class. Furthermore, Marx decries the emphasis on self interest that capitalism creates. He strongly dislikes that this system creates a class that only cares about its productivity and it profit. The lack of human compassion in capitalism clearly has negative effects on the treatment of the working class. Lastly, Marx does not agree with the way in which capitalism conducts its business. Because of the greed engendered through capitalism, nations need to scavenge through all parts of the world to find worthy resources, while ignoring the national resources and industries within their nation. Therefore, the locally owned businesses are shut out by the more profitable foreign industries. Overall, Marx does not see that the oppression of the majority for the wealth of a few is in any way profitable for a nation.

Marx On Capitalism

Overall it is more than clear Marx does not support capitalism within this passage. Yet he does state a few things that prove useful when capitalism arises. He recognizes that capitalism does produced “more massive and more colossal” structures (59). Also, he identifies how capitalism produces many products that can prove useful to individuals as well as can be made quickly. The objects capitalism has created such as technology are impressive and have advanced our society in some ways according to Marx. Capitalism also destroyed feudalism which Marx is thankful for. Yet, the majority of the time, Marx expresses many concerns about capitalism. One concern of his is the amount of self-interest capitalism promotes. He says “and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self- interest, than callous “cash payment”” (57). Obviously Marx thinks capitalism degrades social interaction among people. He even explains how capitalism decays the family structure by tearing apart the sentimental values of the family. Not only are family values at stake but Marx says boldly “It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value” (57).
Not only does capitalism degrade human relations, but also replaces the middle class with machinery. Humans become nothing but a commodity. Everything has a value including human labor. The proletariat also known as the middle class are “stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe” (58). Marx even uses a metaphor explaining how the worker has become “an appendage of a machine”. On top of degrading the middle class individuals to become simply factory workers, Marx argues that capitalism forces nations to be dependent one another. Therefore sometimes the cheap goods of barbaric nations are needed and capitalism barges in. After capitalism takes the cheap commodities it sets up the barbaric and natural state into a capitalist society. “In one word, it creates a world after its own image” states Marx (59). It is clear that Marx does not respect capitalism in anyway other than the immense and vast products it can produce.

He Likes it, he likes it not..

     The list of dislikes outweighs the admirations of capitalism in Karl Marx’s view.  Prior to the development of capitalism, feudalism was the driving force of the economy.  Feudalism had resonated since the Middle Ages.  It was biased and rooted in extreme inequalities for reasons simply as heritage and wealth.  It was equivalent to a caste system.  It took a lot of revolutions and ground breaking philosophies to eliminate feudalism.  The industrial revolution ushered in the downfall of feudalism. With the industrial revolution came the rise of the bourgeoisie.  This helped break the “caste system” and ushered its constituents into two main classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  The new economic system was now based on competition for resources and survival of the fittest businessman.   This theory of “equality of opportunity” was viewed favorably in Marx’s’ eyes. 

       Turning toward the dislikes, the list seems to be longer.  Marx believed that in order to maintain capitalism, a consistently innovative society was essential.  This required the continuous expansion of technology, which in time would put the mass amounts of the working class (proletariat) out of jobs.  It also greatly cuts back on the wages of the citizens who are still working. 

     Another factor to Marx’s dismay was that of globalization.  This also provided another window of intense competition.  Globalization allowed every nation to work together and oppress the proletariat as a whole.  (This is similar to out sourcing today.)  This inspired the proletariat to compete with one another for the wages.  Marx did not like this because he felt that the proletariat should be fighting the bourgeoisie. 

     Finally, Marx was disappointed that capitalism ruined the most sacred institution: the nuclear family.  During the industrial revolution, children as young as four were being put to work in coal mines and the like.  Children were most often seen in coal mines because they could fit in the small sections of the mines.  Families were being torn apart.  The movie Germinal clearly exemplifies this point.  The family featured in the movie was constantly at work; they never had time to grow as a family.  Marx would frown upon this because families, in general, are a place for people to turn to in times of need; families also shape who one is as a person.  

A Little Bit of This...A Little Bit of That

I've read The Communist Manifesto before, but it has never dawned on me how much Marx likes capitalism.  Attributing many inventions, classes and lifestyles to capitalism, he seems to take the approach that capitalism as progressed our society.  We have moved from enslavement to feudalism to capitalism, each time making horrible conditions a little better for the worker.  Marx believes that the bourgeoisie has paved the way for this "revolution of capitalism", or so to speak.  Capitalism is good for the creation of new technologies, jobs & opportunities, free trading, political restructuring, social restructuring, and so on.  All these contribute to the growth and prosperity of a nation and world.  After all, the bourgeoisie would not be the working middle class it was without the effects capitalism has produced.

But, of course, Marx finds some downsides to capitalism.  Man has divided labor and then has created machines to help/do most of the labor.  The products created from this system has lost "all individual character" (61).  They do not show the careful stitching of the sewer, the considerate craftsmanship of the table maker or the thoughtful engineering of the bricklayer.  Machines produce a finished project, not a work of art.  So what use is the sewer, table maker or the bricklayer?  They are all just instruments of labor, performing meaningless work day after day.  So capitalism has taken away individualism and then, has again enslaved the worker.  This is why the workers have tried to form unions and unite to help save themselves.  This is why capitalism must again transform into another form...a form that is a little better for the worker.

Too much of a good thing

Despite the commonly held claim that Marx is entirely against capitalism's effects entirely, actually reading his work reveals that he is indeed gladdened by some aspects of this Bourgeoisie revolution. Marx seems to be extremely grateful to this "new ruling class" for upheaval and destroying feudalism and in turn economic favoritism based on heritage. He is extremely glad to see the fall of unfair aristocracies and the destruction of the lies and religious dogma which enabled them to thrive. No longer was wealth or good business a birthright, it became based entirely upon the very best businessman; the economy turned from a playground for the "divinely chosen" to a brutal competition where the greatest businessman will prosper and the poorest die out. Based on Marx's views on communism as a whole, I firmly believe he looks upon such an upheaval favorably. However, he is extremely critical of this revolution in other areas, as its means have been at the expense of the backbone of industry. He believes that the bourgeoisie need a constantly growing economy to prosper in and once manual labor could no longer produce steady growth, man turned to innovation and began creating new machinery and technology to mass produce. In doing this though, the class put their counterparts, the proletariat into a very disturbing predicament. No longer were their jobs dignified, or even necessary, but they just became a body to either perform some minuscule task for hours upon hours or to over see a machine doing so. This also created an extreme shortage of jobs for the proletariat, as in this constantly innovating society the need for unskilled and somewhat skilled labor alike has suffered greatly. Marx feels that these people have been shortchanged by this capitalist revolution and should be given their fair share at life. This is his main quarrel with capitalism, but he does see hope. No matter what the bourgeoisie will say, they will always require the proletariat and cannot exist without them. It is this class that puts their new machines to work, that watches over them, that fights their wars. Marx sees this as a chance for the underprivileged class to rise up and overthrow this new ruling class through the simple fact that the upper class needs the proletariat to exist, to constantly expand their economy. If the proletariat were to strike or stop working, they would bring the bourgeoisie to their knees.

On Communism

It is hard to think that a system like communism could accept some of what capitalism has done, but Marx does give capitalism some merit. He says that capitalism has established a highly developed means of trade for a worldwide market, which in turn has made industry bigger and better. Marx also acknowledges how well capitalism is able to spread to developing countries, and how easy it is for developing countries to get into capitalism.

But that is the extent of Marx's praise. Past that, he is quite unhappy with the system as a whole. Although Marx acknowledges this advancement, he identifies the problem with it: the exploitation of the working class. Through time, the working class is constantly sunk into lower positions by machinery, and in turn are also paid lower wages. But this exploitation is not taken idly, for the working class will band into unions and try to fight for rights of decent wages. And although capitalist may hold initial power over the working class, it is not before long that the working class bands together and works to bring down the capitalist. And in this conflict, it is the capitalist who loses, for capitalist require workers to function. Exploiting the very basis of fortune cannot last forever, and in the end, capitalist dig their own grave by exploiting those beneath them. Marx thinks that this is an ugly conflict: having men on top exploit those on the bottom, and at the same time have those on the bottom be motivated by having to take out those on top.

Blog Assn #11: Marx and the Manifesto

Please post about the following topic to the blog by 8:00 PM on Sunday, Feb. 22nd.

Based on the first section of the Manifesto, What does Marx like about capitalism? What does Marx dislike about capitalism?

Wordsworth

Wordsworth’s poem in some ways reminds me of the poem that we discussed in depth on Friday. On Friday we talked about how there was so much industrialization going on in London, and how it was rapidly changing the look of the city. Here Wordsworth talks about his true appreciation for nature, however, it has been awhile since he’d last truly got to experience it, five years to be exact. He goes on to talk about his different memories that he has with nature and all the different things that he really is grateful for in nature. However, Wordsworth has of course realized that there is now less of this nature to be appreciated. There are now so many different towns that are being established and different factories and stores that are being built that it is replacing the nature that Wordsworth feels so dearly about. Wordsworth would prefer that we go back to a more natural state, one where there is much less industrialization. Wordsworth sees all this industrialization as a having a negative effect on the people of England. He believes that nature has an opposite effect though. Wordsworth believes that all of the nature that he describes in the beginning of the poem helps people to be better moral selves, and it is for this reason that we should all have the same appreciation for nature that Wordsworth has for it.

New #1 Pittsburgh Panthers

Woodsworth throughout the poem is talking about him and his relationship with nature. He describes a beautiful landscape that he found his way back to after he had not seen this place for five years. He also talks about how reuniting with this place has revived him when he says "While here I stand, not only with the sense of present pleasure, but with pleasing thoughts." He also talks about after the time has passed from when he last was at this spot, he looks at nature in a different way, and instead of nature being apart of his life like it used to be, he now just looks upon in. He see how beautiful it is and instead of playing, he simply stands back and witnesses what he didn't see when he was younger. He then brings his sister up and talks about how she was also as apart of nature as he was. Lastly he talks about how when he no longer around he doesn't want people to forget about him and his connection to nature.

Tintern Abbey

William Wordsworth begins the poem by explaining that he is revisiting a place that he has not been in five years. He describes the feelings and emotions about nature and life that he had when he first visited the landscape of Wye. Wordsworth explains how this secluded place on a hill enabled him to seek deep into his soul and to uncover many different feelings and emotions. He writes, “Once again do I behold these steep and lofty cliffs, that on a wild secluded scene impress thoughts of more deep seclusion; and connect the landscape with the quiet of the sky” (25). Wordsworth explains in the beginning of the poem that in nature you feel that everything is complete when you are a kid – just as he did five years ago. However, as he continues the poem, his explains how his thoughts and opinions toward nature have changed. He writes, “For I have learned to look on nature, not as in the hour of thoughtless youth; but hearing often-times the still, sad music of humanity…” (27). As the poem goes on, Wordsworth seems to develop more negative and harsh feelings about nature. The poem explains different connections that a man can have to nature throughout different stages in their life.
I believe that the poem shows the transformation of William Wordsworth as a poet. As he grew older, his views of nature and possibly many other things in life have changed. Something that was once beautiful and innocent to him now is something that he is disgusted by.

Tintern Abbey

Wordsworth describes Tintern Abbey in a very vivid manner. It is obvious that Tintern Abbey is a place of great happiness and peace for him, a place where he can rest and think. Every time Wordsworth leaves Tintern Abbey, Tintern Abbey does not leave him. The memory of the beautiful landscape Wordsworth portrays accompanies him whenever he leaves. Beyond being a lovely beautiful memory, for Wordsworth, this memory does much more. It seems as though it is a place of solace in his mind. It is a comfort that in hours of weakness and weariness supports him and allows him to go on. It allows him to go on and also to do acts of kindness and love. In his ‘unintelligible world’ that places a heavy wait upon him, the memory of Tintern Abbey helps him be serene and peaceful. During joyless days he is able to leave his body and travel through his mind back to Tintern Abbey, a place that gives him hope for the future. From the time he was a boy, he has been shaped by his visits and memories of this happy place. Now as a man, his time at Tintern Abbey has taught him to interpret and view the ‘harsh and grating’ humanity in a more subdued and less extreme way. In the second half of the poem, Wordsworth conveys his happiness that his younger sister now is finding such joy in a place that has done so much to shape his life. He is certain that Tintern Abbey has the ability to affect her life in just as positive a way as it did his. Also, he hopes that they will share a bond because of their love for Tintern Abbey and she will therefore always think back on him and be happy because he will be forever connected to a place they both loved so dearly.

Tintern Abbey interpretation

William Wordsworth gave a great message through this poem. He started off saying how he hasn’t been to Tintern Abbey in so long, but the place still has a great effect on him. In the lines “These beauteous forms, through a long absence, have not been to me as is a landscape to a blind man’s eye,” Wordsworth expresses that although he hasn’t been there in a while, he has never forgotten the place. The memories have offered great comfort to him and have even affected his actions. He realizes that the last time he was at the abbey, he was juvenile and not aware of the world, but now he is grown up and knows the horrors of humanity. And although he has seen the world’s cruelty, he still appreciates nature and the aesthetic things in life. He tells his sister to put this place in her mind and remember the simplicity, beauty, and naturalness that really makes up the world behind all the awfulness. I believe Wordsworth’s main message is that we forget what is true and wonderful in this world. We need to remember that beauty, like what is still observed at Tintern Abbey, and we can’t get caught up in the unpleasantness of humanity.
I can connect to this poem with the camp I work at over the summer. I was a camper there for 10 years and this coming summer will be my 4th summer working there. And I feel that no matter how much changes in the world around the camp, nothing inside it changes. Everything is beautiful and appreciated, especially the nature growing all through its land. I could see Wordsworth having a similar feeling at this camp like the one he has at Tintern Abbey.

I think my brain turned off or something...

Wordsworth’s message is that no matter how long ago something affected you, the memory stays with you forever. The memories of Titern Abby that Wordsworth has still make him feel at peace. To Wordsworth, pure, untamed nature is the closest thing to heaven a living person can get. Especially because with time the things you found mysterious and scary become beautiful and unreal. Nature helps you figure out whom you really are and what you want to do with your life. It allows you to sort out your problems without any external influences. Wordsworth hopes that his sister can one day experience the same thing he experienced. He wants everyone to be able to experience nature for what it really is. Nature contains safety, realization, love, joy, and many good things. Nature is something to be worshipped and kept alive. Even after five years, Titern Abby is just as beautiful as Wordsworth remembered. Also, nature provides food and shelter, and with nature people can truly live.

Nature and It's Value to Wordsworth

William Wordsworth starts out his poem by saying it has been five long years since he has been back to this beauteous place in nature that he has remembered so often but also so perfectly, “ These beauteous forms, through a long absence, have not been to me as is a landscape to a blind man’s eye: But oft, in lonely rooms, and ‘mid the din of towns and cities, I have owed to them in hours of weariness, sensations sweet, felt in the blood, and felt along the heart; and passing even into my purer mind, with tranquil restoration” (26). Even though Wordsworth has been away from this place for five years, he can sit alone in a room in the middle of a city and still feel the peace and ease he felt at this sacred spot in nature.
Even now revisiting this place, Wordsworth remembers the memories he had there, and how bittersweet it is to remember them. He feels that even though he cannot relive the memories of his boyish days, he doesn’t mourn it because he can now see this place in a completely new light.
Wordsworth feels that even if he did not return to this place in nature, he would be at peace with it because of his relationship with his sister. He hopes that even when he is not there someday, she can remember this place and think of him and be at peace. Although Wordsworth closes out the poem by saying that after all of his wanderings in this place, the years of absence made this place more dear and fond to him than it ever was before.

Untouched Nature Has Value

William Wordsworth begins his poem by expressing how it has been too long since he has revisited the location of the Tintern Abbey. He begins to reminisce about the last time he visited the place, and childhood memories flood into his brain. The sounds, smells, and general experience of the nature amuse him and he adores them. Wordsworth appreciates every aspect of nature, because nature allows him to escape into a different world. He has “thoughts of more deep seclusion” as he thinks about the nature around him. He even explains how the memories of this specific place have an influence on him in other times. He says “ These beauteous forms, Through a long absence, have not been to me As is a landscape to a blind man’s eye.” As the poem continues, I find myself feeling extreme emotion from Wordsworth as if he is almost saddened but what the world has become. We tend to forget nature’s beauty in the bustle of our cities, and even abuse nature. For nature is not like humans who often betray or humiliate, it is simply there in its beautiful state. As Wordsworth says “Knowing that nature never did betray, The heart that loved her.” Throughout the poem, Wordsworth’s words make the reader feel as if nature is embedded deep into the heart. Without the fond memories of Tintern Abbey from his past, there would be a whole in his heart (obviously not literally). Although Wordsworth understands that these encounters with nature are in the past, he still says “Therefore am I still, A lover of the meadows and the woods, And mountains; and of all that we behold.” For he will always hold nature to the highest esteem.

P.S. - This poem reminds me of a special time when I was young and rode horses. When I went on "trail rides", I would go alone and see a beautiful spot completely untouched by mankind. I would lie on my horse and dream of fairies and such. At times I wish to return to that spot, but yet have not.

blog assignment #10

What can I add to all the other’s comments on this topic? Well, there is not much, but I will do my best to perhaps draw some ties between this guy and other Transcendentalist. Transcendentalism, by definition, is the means of communing with God through nature. There is an absence of organized religion in this ideology; why go to other men to hear about God when you can go into the woods and experience God first hand? Well, the author of this poem does not mention God, but his beliefs are very similar. Nature is his religion. He mentions himself that he worships nature. Just like a church would be to some people, the magnificent beauties of the world are to Wordsworth. One can say that this man is rather antisocial---for he never mentions seeking solace by means of other people. This argument is perhaps the greatest to debunk this guy’s views. Obviously, Wordsworth exhibits a sort of introverted personality---re-energizing on his own, by himself, in the presence of trees and cliffs and the like. Only some people are like this, and not all. Not everyone can just lose themselves in the beauty of nature---some people are wired with the need to talk to other people. Wordsworth would argue that other people complicate things, and interfere with the Zen of being in nature. There is one more thing to point out worth importance. Amidst the poem is a line that identifies that Wordsworth sees humanity in nature---that by looking at the trees and the oceans and the cliffs he is able to see everyman. He calls it “the still, sad music of humanity.” This line is followed by a string of lines that seem to imply that humanity and nature have one commonality. They are both able to be subdued. So, it is easy to sum up that the author believes that society not only neglects nature, but abuses it. This is the same with people. This poet seems to exemplify Blake. He plays on emotion and downplays reason. Come back to nature.

On Tintern Abby

For Wordsworth, the his memories of Tintern Abby affect him greatly. He begins by recalling after five years away from Tintern Abby the beauty of the landscape. And even after five years away, he says the landscape still resides fresh within his memory. In the hustle and bustle of the city setting and "normal" human life, this memory offers to Wordsworth a refuge to a place of higher beauty then the habitat man builds for himself. He even acknowledges at some points this might be some trivial belief that nature's impact on him might be for nothing, but the beauty of nature throughout his life has affected him so much he cannot forget it, rather, he embraces it, saying it makes up and guides his moral being. At one point he looks upon nature in his early life and how he looks at it today, saying its changed but that it is not for the worse, just different. He concludes by saying how nature has not only affected but strengthened his relationship with his sister, hoping that she is able to find happiness through her memories of nature the same way the speaker was able to.

But the main point Wordsworth is trying to get at is that memories act as a refuge for our mind. Something of great positive impact upon us can serve as a sanctuary in time of hardships. We can reflect back on our past to bring back that feeling of joy we feel when we experience whatever it is. And whatever that thing is, it remains vivid and real within our mind, only changing over time but never becoming less of a joy. For Wordsworth, he finds it in nature. By wanting his sister to find the same joy in nature, he thinks that there are others who can do the same.

For the Soul

In “Tintern Abbey”, Wordsworth speaks of nature as a refuge from the challenges of everyday life. Wordsworth seems to address not only himself, but also nature or the landscape of the Wye River, speaking to it as a “Friend” and a “Sister”. For him, this landscape has been a solace to him in times when he is confined in the cacophonous setting of the more developed cities and towns, if only as a place to return to in his memory. Wordsworth writes that “While with an eye made quiet by the power/ Of harmony, and the deep power of joy,/ We see into the life of things.” He speaks as if the appreciation of nature calms one so much from the stresses of society that it is capable of helping one to understand why, understand our existence, maybe not perfectly, but more so than the life in the city. He also reminisces about his childhood spent using nature as his playground, and although he no longer runs free, nature is still in the very heart of his soul.
The overall tone of the poem seems to be one of lament, yet still fond remembrance. He speaks of the joys nature brings him and its purifying effect on the human soul, but there is an underlying feeling of the sadness of loss. Possibly, this lament is referring to the loss of the freedom and naturalness of childhood and loss of the natural state of all humanity to the busy cities and worries of industry and commerce. He writes that, now that he is older, he looks to nature and hears “The still, sad music of humanity,” as if humanity is to be mourned for its now stagnant place in the routines of industry, being left without the freedom of nature.

Beauty Around Us

Wordsworth starts off his poem by saying that it has been too long (five years too long) since he as seen, heard and felt the beauty that is in nature.  He goes into great detail about the human senses that are excited while around nature.  Then he describes memories and past times associated with nature.  But how these feelings have been lost while cooped up in a lonely, dreary room in London!

I believe Wordsworth's point steams from the little synopsis above.  He talks so much about returning to nature that he must think that mankind in general should return to nature.  Wit nature being "felt in the blood, and felt in the heart" (26), man should not be denying himself the pleasures of natural beauty.  Cities are hurting man's mood and senses and he should return back to his natural place to regain them.  Furthermore, Wordsworth says nature teaches man more about the "life of things", meaning the way to live.

At the end of his poem, he talks about himself as a worshipper of nature who has finally returned to his natural place.  He is now much happier, more appreciative of his surroundings and this new-found excitement both helps him and the nature around him.  Here, I think Wordsworth touches on the idea that nature helps nature.  The woods, cliffs and pastors help us to be better humans and we help the woods, cliffs and pastors by being there to accept their beauty.  We are as dear to nature as nature is as dear to us.  Therefore, why ever leave it?

Nature

Wordsworth is clearly a transcendentalist and goes to great length to describe the majesty of nature and all of its greatness. He feels that observing nature presents the way things should really be in the world and he seems greatly distressed by the buildup of society and modernity, feeling that modernity is coming at the expense of what truly should be. He seems to parallel his own life with the history of man, as he remembers fondly his youth and how it was problem free. He seems to believe that that was how things were when nothing but nature ruled; that there were no complications in life and the simplest acts of kindness represented the goodness of man, compared to the barrage of politicking that goes on in the modern world. With the buildup of societies, he seems to think that the world has been done a great disservice, that the way things were meant to be is now being driven out from the world. He seems to be speaking to a woman, his loved one, but the more I analyze the poem it looks like he is speaking not to a woman, but to society in general. No one can deny living in society has its benefits and Wordsworth is torn by that. He is truly in love with nature and knows that was how it was meant to be, but he is also attached to the pleasures of the civilized world. However, he suggests that the attachment to nature is a far holier mistress and he has no choice but to return to her. He feels it would be for the benefit of his “lover”, society, that he leaves as well, as there are those who believe society is greater than nature and he would just be a burden on them. He doesn’t quarrel with these people though, which suggests he truly feels he is right.

Coming Home

For the first few stanzas William Wordsworth seems to hold an optimistic outlook when he discusses his views on nature.  He describes the scenery around him with great detail and passion.  Wordworth seems to parallel his childhood with that of the state of nature.  He says that things were simpler and perfect in his youth and the state of nature.  Now that he has grown, many aspects of his life have become difficult; now that we have left the state of nature; daily life has become lonely, weakening and poor. 

 Wordworth makes a statement that seems to resonate in my mind.  He says, “Thy memory be as a dwelling place.”   This statement still applies today; when one is stressed or upset, he or she may go for a walk in the woods to clear his or her head or think back to better times.  When one is stressed out he or she may turn to old memories to comfort him or her.  Wordworth is saying that he needs to leave the current state he is in and return to the state of nature because this is where he can contemplate things and feel safe. 

Wordworth states, toward the end of the poem, that he is a worshipper of nature which is analogous to a transcendentalist.  The poets love for nature breeds a desire in him to leave the state he is currently in and return to the state of nature in which he knew and loved.   Wordworth hints that in order to do this he will have to break away from society.  Wordworth ends his poem with the hope that his return to the state of nature will be glorious.  He describes it so well that it is easy to visualize: “steep woods,” “lofty cliffs;” the adjectives are romanticized.  

Blog Assn #10: "Tintern Abbey"

Please post about the following topic to the blog by 8:00 PM on Tuesday, Feb. 17.

What is Wordsworth saying in "Tintern Abbey?"

Proverbs by Blake..

Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation.

Be selfish, it is the only way to fulfill your desires.

9 Days till spring training

You miss all the shots you don't take.

Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what your gonna get.

proverbs?

The eyes are bigger than the stomach.

To wait for true love is to wait for a world of peace.

Proverbs

God created the sloth that way.

You never know how good something is until you lose it

I hope I did it right

Take what you want, it does not matter how much as long as it is what you desire.

If others are willing to do your work for you allow them and take the free time.

Hopefully I got them right this time....

To try and get nothing is a greater achievement than not trying and getting everything.

Appreciation is what you make of it, if you want too much, you will never appreciate anything.

blog assignment #9

The sun apologizeth not for being bright
But blindeth the eyes who dare to match its loftiness

Irises germinate not by remaining still
But only after the aggitation of whirlwind

Attempt #1 Proverbs of Hell

Lavish yourself, feast on a whole turkey if you so desire; for the hungry man is the sorrow man.

Take a step into the water even if you do not know how deep the water may be; for the person who never takes the steps cannot find new knowledge.

My Proverbs from Hell

The glutton is accused of being a fool, but the accuser should be the one accused.

The man of high justice finds himself in a personal prison; the man of high thievery finds everlasting happiness.

2 Proverbs in hell

A lion does not conceal its instinctual nature, nor does it pretend to be more vituous than it truly is

An eagle in mid-swoop does not stop to consider how a full stomach might affect its prey

proverbs 1 and 2

To the voracious man, the world is wisdom; to the satisfied man, the world is nothing.

The sermon blasphemes; experience glorifies.

Proverbs of Hell (Take 2)

Nakedness is brutality to the common eye, but nudity is left to the pleasure of the artist.

Crows no nothing of song, yet they sing in praise of the Lord.

Proverbs

1. The man sick from too much food is happier than the man sick from starvation.
2. He engulfed in water will always be better off than he who is parched.

Two Proverbs of Hell

1.  The content man is the man who acts unjustly. 

2.  The man who holds his head high sees all, while the man who hangs his sees nothing but the dirt. 

Blog Assn #9: Proverbs of Hell

Before 8:00 PM on Sunday, Feb. 15, please post 2 "proverbs of hell" -- proverbs that William Blake would be happy to include with his own.

Lincoln and Delbanco

I found Delbanco’s example about the depiction of Lincoln in a movie and how he juxtaposed it to some of the qualities of the United States to be quite interesting. According to Delbanco, when Lincoln was bullied at school, he attempted to turn the other cheek and avoid confrontation. However, in the end, Lincoln agreed to a wrestling match, and after defeating his enemy, Lincoln and his bully became fast friends. Delbanco then continued to compare Lincoln’s actions in this movie to how the U.S. defeated Germany in World War II, but now are allies. I find this to be continually true of the U.S. system of gaining “friends”. We have a tendency to invade a country and destroy everything; thus, forcing the country to become somewhat dependent on us for resources. Instant friends. Currently, the U.S. military is in Iraq and cannot leave because the country’s new system of operating would fall apart without us. We went in to defeat the enemy (or find us some quality oil) and ended up taking care of the Iraqis, even when they do not want to be taken care of. I understand that Delbanco was making his point that Lincoln, as an icon, has been used as a reflection of the United States; however, we should not use him to reflect the U.S., but to guide it. In using Lincoln simply as an icon that reflects our country, the U.S. cannot improve. Nobody ever changed by looking in the mirror. This country must look to the ideals and concepts Lincoln stood for, as he was a great man, and at this point in time, should not have to bare the reflection of our issues.

p.s. I used to play with Lincoln Logs!

Who Are We? And How Can We Be Defined?

During the discussion, Andrew Deblanco stated without war we, as country, don’t know who we are. Yet I am not quite satisfied with statement and I am baffled by it. I understand his point on the surface in that wars help us, as a country, determine progress and explain the situations during that time period. I also understand that we should learn from the wars in our past. But I cannot even begin to argue that what defines our country is the wars that we fought in. In that case, the injustice of Vietnam would define us? Somehow I think there is more to this country, then simply the fighting that has gone on in the past two-hundred and fifty years. There are multiple ways to define our country, one being the speeches that president present. For example, speeches from Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and even Barrack Obama have uplifted our country in times disparity. Not only can president’s speeches define our country but words of wisdom from the non-violent Martin Luther King Jr., or Susan B. Anthony on behalf of women’s right. If I were to define the country I would automatically think of the times when George Washington spoke of the dangers of having political parties as well as his moving words about the future of America, or Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution in which has stood the test of time, or even the burning of bras in Washington D.C during the Women’s Rights Movement or presently the election of an African- American man, Barrack Obama and his words on hope and change for the future. America is not simply a fighting nation but a place of change and integrity. If anything America, should be known for its rebellious citizens who speak their mind at ease, and a government that is, as Lincoln said, “by the people, for the people, and of the people.” It was not just simply the Civil War that defined America, but Lincoln’s words and radical views that shape our belief’s today. As Jefferson said in Philadelphia “we have given you a republic if you can keep it”, therefore it is the events, which may include war, and words of the people in America that define who we are.

The Inner Lincoln

Unfortunately, I went into Andrew Delbanco’s talk this evening without knowing pretty much anything about President Lincoln. History just isn’t my thing. So I found Delbanco’s speech very interesting. One point that stuck out to me was that Lincoln was quite humorous. In one of his many speeches, Lincoln suggested that Whites should try slavery for themselves, since they thought slavery was such a great thing. I found this interesting and I wondered what Whites’ reaction was to that suggestion. Obviously, Lincoln was sarcastic and knew that whites would not view slavery in that way. Delbanco said that Lincoln hated slavery, and that he didn’t use the word ‘hate’ lightly. So then why didn’t he support ending slavery altogether? In Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, he did not free all the slaves; it didn’t mention anything about the slave states that were not in rebellion. When Lincoln became president, he did not vow to end slavery; he just wanted to stop the spread of it. Because of these claims, I would have to agree with Delbanco in that Lincoln was not an abolitionist, an active one at least. Yes, he might have wanted to get rid of slavery, but I’m sure he knew how hard that would be in his time as president. So, he did the best he could do in the time he was given, and I think he did a swell job in advancing the end of slavery. In the beginning of the talk, Delbanco said that some people thought that Lincoln was a false idol; a fake hero during the civil war. I find this statement false in all ways; although Lincoln did not eliminate all of slavery, he made some monumental decisions that have continued to affect America to this day.

Blog Assignment #8 Delbanco

Ok, I am assuming I have a little bit of “free reign.” Professor Delbanco’s presentation pointed out a topic of interest for me. What amazed me, and what I did not know was that President Lincoln did not have any formal education. However, his ideas conveyed in his writings show that he was a man of great intellect and great emotional intelligence. So, this forces me to wonder why I have to pay 40 grand a year at Ursinus College. What is the point? Lincoln did not need any of this to be considered a great person, and to be honest, there are many people who have an education that I would not consider being great intellects. There are those who would say one of the following about college education: 1) the topics picked up for college education are crucial for a job, 2) college makes the student well rounded, especially in a liberal arts setting (I hear this all the time since I have been at UC), and finally 3) It is not what you learn or pick up at college that is beneficial, but rather the credentials, the status of being a member of the elite. I am of the opinion that the first 2 can be easily refuted, and that the 3rd is the most pertinent reason why people go to college. Most of the information I learn in school, and this is true for most, is 1) either not relative to the job wished to be pursued or 2) information that is irrelevant nonetheless and quickly forgotten. Apprenticeship, an idea foreign to society now, is a more practical means of learning the important stuff. Going further, I could say that although college may or may not make a person well rounded, a far cheaper and more practical alternative would be to read at one’s will. I can buy a lot of books with 160,000 dollars. So this leaves me to the idea that schooling is, for the most part, all about credentials. So, what got our society in this position---why are the college educated seen as superior? If Lincoln was around at present day, he would be laughed at for having no credibility.

In Agreement...

Lincoln is often depicted as a figurehead of civil rights for African-Americans. It is true, as Delbanco said, that he was against slavery, but not in the radical sense like the abolitionist. According to Delbanco, Lincoln wanted to wain the movement of slavery any farther in America, but never really made it his full goal to eradicate it. Often his intensity on the subject of slavery eradication is one that is brought into question when one questions the political and moral motives of president Lincoln. Now, while Delbanco did mention the Emancipation Proclamation, he never really addressed Lincolns motives behind it. Often, it has been asserted that it was not a bill designed strictly for the rights of African slaves of the time; instead, it was a document designed to hurt the south during a time of civil unrest so that the union could overtake when the south's economy was hurt. For Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation was a device for war. And I believe Delbanco would agree with this assertion. Delbanco brought up a interesting point: Lincoln was after preserving the Union, and at any cost. Quoting Lincoln, he asserted the point that Lincoln was after union in the Union, and would do it if it meant saving all the slaves or none of them. Going back to Lincoln's motives for writing the Emancipation Proclamation, these arguments that Delbanco says furthers the chance he would agree with such an assertion of Lincoln's motives, that whatever could make the Union whole was what Lincoln would do.

Patience Over Desire

The talk about Lincoln tonight was a very interesting commentary on possibly the greatest president in our nation's history. While I agreed with almost all of his statements and points, one struck odd to me, and this was the fact that he stated that Lincoln was not an abolitionist. I do not contend that the goals of his presidency were based entirely around the goal of extinguishing slavery, I do contend that it was a major part of his plans. I believe that Lincoln was in fact the greatest politician in the history of the nation and was able to lay his foundations for his goal while not blatantly ostracizing any of his supporters. Hunter S. Thompson once wrote that "politics is the art of controlling one's environment." Lincoln exemplifies this theory to a tee. One of the chief arguments against Lincoln's "abolitionism" was the fact that Lincoln proclaimed John Brown and his supporters were "radicals". There is a flaw in this logic in two ways. First, John Brown proposed to murder innocents as means to meet his ends. Lincoln, as a politician, could not be viewed as a blood monger of anytime, especially at a time of such great tension in the country. Second, which is partly driven from the first though not entirely, is that Lincoln was running for president. I was fortunate enough to have been raised half in the north and half in the south. Therefore, I have learned the two views when regarding these issues first hand. In the north, he was regarded as a sort of martyr for his sacrifice for the slaves. In the south, he was viewed as a monster who murdered an innocent prairie family. These views still hold true today. Lincoln was campaigning for president in 1859 and 1860, a year before the Confederacy ultimately seceded. When on the campaign trail, he was a third party candidate, running under the newly formed Republican party. He, therefore, could talk of the evils of slavery and what not to those who would listen in the north and south. He could not, however, advocate the actions of John Brown or his means anywhere, no matter if he believed in his goal or not. This is because though this select group of Southerners may not have agreed with slavery, the attitude of the south has always been extremely neighbor oriented, much more so than the north. I know for a fact that they would never have stood for anyone, especially a Yankee, murdering their fellow good ole' boys.That is why he referred to John Brown as a radical, he dared not ostracize even the tiny amount of southerners that would vote his way. This was also to not motivate the South to secede, which was a real possibility at the time. It was a political maneuver. When he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he did not free the slaves in the Union's border states as not to turn them away from the Union, even though they would all be freed sooner rather than later. He was at heart an abolitionist, but knew his duty to the nation to keep it together, even if he had to put his goals of destroying slavery to the side. So perhaps the speaker and I merely differ in our definition of abolitionist. But through all the indications brought up, Lincoln's "anti abolitionist" behaviors can be explained as reasonable political maneuvers, which in the end resulted in slvery's elimination. The fact remains that there is no question Lincoln wished slavery to be abolished, just not through murderous means or at the expense of the Union. Therefore, in my mind, he was an abolitionist. There are many more examples, but I can not go into them based on the assignments length. This would make a great paper topic.

Blog Assn #8: Delbanco

Please post about the following topic to the blog by midnight on Thursday, Feb. 12.

Offer an argument against one of Delbanco’s claims (in the 4:30 PM talk in the Lenfest Theater in the “Kleid”); or offer a fresh argument (that Delbanco himself doesn’t) in favor of one of his claims.

Sex Slavery

I do believe that the United States should intervene with sex trafficking, I just don’t think that the U.S. can do it now. I do believe that it is a big issue, however, I think that the U.S. has to take care of some domestic issues beforehand, also the war on Iraq. But I think that once we get that all settled then I think that the U.S. should take action. I suppose that one of the major things the U.S. could actually do is just sanction Cambodia. I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t take any action. If their government isn’t going to take a big enough stand on the issue then I think the U.S. should. It is clearly a moral issue that we need to take stand against, we can’t sit around while no one does anything and pretends like nothing is happening. I feel as if too many people in the U.S. only look to help other countries as long as there is a benefit for the United States. One clear example of this would be Sudan, and I think just because something that is wrong and going on in another country should still have someone take a stand against it.

Huh, we start out with slave girls and end with slave girls

As disturbing as slavery is in the 21st century, I do not believe that the United States has any right to fix the situation. It may seem like we should approach these other countries and eradicate the disgusting problem, yet it is not our right to do so. As the article said, it would be very difficult to free the sex slaves because paying for all of them to start new lives would just result in more girls entering the business so they could be “freed” and get paid for having been a sex slave. In addition, there is the issue that the cambodians do not truly see what they are doing as wrong. The fact that parents as selling their own children to slavery tells me that they feel there is some legitimacy in what they are doing. I feel that any action by the United States would be imposing our morals on another country and this should not be done. From a liberalist point of view, our country should not be doing anything, but rather the government in cambodia should be working to protect the young girls from slavery. I believe the only action that the United States could take would be political. By imposing economic and trade sanctions on countries that allow sex slaves, the United States in conjunction with the United Nations could force countries to create laws protecting girls from being sold into slavery. Yet the problem starts before even the government. As the article said, the one girl is a three grade drop-out and the other is illiterate. Schooling and education needs to be improved in these countries before almost anything else. Then girls would know that they have other options than slavery and some of the more brilliant students may even discover ways to change their country for the better.

Should the United States Intervene?

Do I feel awful for the girls in Cambodia being forced into sex trafficking? Yes. Do I feel that the United States should do something about it at this point in time? No. At this point in time, our economy is in a terrible recession. America should be concerned with getting itself back on its own two feet, and not the girls in Cambodia. Even though it’s not exactly the same, girls in America are being forced into prostitution to make a living. America should therefore be helping the women in its own country before others. I believe if the United States was in a different position by not have an economic recession we would be able to focus more on people in other countries who need our help. However, right now is not the time and place for America to be intervening in other countries issues.
Since I do believe sex trafficking is wrong and should be stopped, I have a liberal view. I believe every person has the right to the pursuit of happiness. However, my view of what the United States should do is completely opposite of liberalism. I am pretty much saying that the United States should not be concerned with other people’s freedom at this point in time. However, making sure girls in Cambodia are living a better life is not a main concern in America at this moment. The main concern should be making sure Americans are living a better life.

Not worth it

The United States should not do anything about sex trafficking in other countries. There are too many problems within the country right now to worry about something that does not even affect us. Granted sex trafficking is not right in any way, but America would just waste money it does not have in order to try to stop something the country with the problem should stop on its own. Also, if America tries to stop sex trafficking in other countries, it just makes us look like we are trying to enforce our views on the world more so than we already are. Our attempts to stop sex trafficking, in Cambodia for instance, might provoke military resistance from the Cambodian government. The last thing America needs is a reason to regret a major moment in history (first African American president) by going into a pointless war. My view would fit in with liberalism if the government were only interested in protecting the rights of everyone within its own ruler-ship; however, if the government wanted to protect the rights of everyone in the world then my argument would not fit into liberalism. Everyone deserves rights and deserves to be free, but it is too difficult, and sometimes pointless, for another country to impose rights and wrongs onto another country.

"But what I do have are a very particular set of skills..."

A couple weeks ago I went to the movies and saw Taken. It’s about a man’s daughter and her cousin who get kidnapped in Paris by sex traffickers. And he is a retired preventer, so of course he has some super cool skills that help him in getting his daughter back. I connected this with Kristof’s column, although I’m sure the conditions in Cambodia are much more severe.
I do not think that the US should get involved with the sex slavery in other countries. Yes, sex trafficking is a terrible thing and no teenage girl should have to go through that, but the US should focus on our own problems and stay out of other countries’ problems, unlike what we did in Iraq. There isn’t really a good way to even help with the problem in Cambodia, our army can’t just stroll into Poipet and rescue all the prostitutes and arrest all the pimps. That just isn’t our place to act. In Kristof’s articles, he said that the women’s organizations are being lazy with this whole situation. But what really can they do? I mean, if sex slavery is going on in America, then I sure as hell hope these women’s groups and everyone else would be trying everything possible to put a stop to it. But in another country, with their own government and laws, we can’t really do much unless we force our way in and take over (and that just isn’t cool) The best we can do is let those countries know our opinion on the matter and let them know we are more than willing to help end the slavery.
A liberal society would want these women to have their own individual rights, and not be forced to have sex for money or to be keep locked up 24/7. Personally, I think nothing about sex slavery is right and it should be stopped. But I think Cambodia and all the other countries where this is going on need to step up and try and put a stop to it themselves, and not need the US to threaten them to get it done.

:)

I don't think the U.S. government should do anything to interfere with what is going on in Cambodia. Even though it is wrong that these girls are getting sucked into prostitution and being forced to stay in the business because of the debt to their owners, it is not really our business to interfere. I think the United States getting involved in too many situations, such as Iraq, and in turn it gives our country a bad reputation that we just want everyone to be just like us. It may not seem right but right now I feel that the only way the United States should get involved in any foreign situations is if it directly threatens our country and is vital to protect fellow citizens. Making sure that poor Cambodian girls don't get caught up in prostitution is not that vital to our citizens protection and wouldn't provide much benefit to our country if we ended prostitution in Cambodia. This obviously goes against liberalism. It would probably pretty close if not the exact opposite. My view would require us to turn our head to what is going on and to not protect those people's individual rights. However, I think it is important to pick your battles and this is not one the United States should get involved in. We have more important things going on with our own country, the recession, that we have to fix first.

Slavery in the 21st Century

Today, about seven hundred thousand people worldwide per year are caught up in the “slavery” of the 21st century – sex slavery. This so called slavery is taking place in many third world countries such as Cambodia where innocent village girls are either sold by their relatives to help pay the debt of the family or kidnapped by neighbors and other people to sell their body for money. These teenage girls, in most cases, are raped, infected by AIDS, and usually end up dying before their mid-twenties. “Typically, trafficking not only destroys its victims' bodies with AIDS but maims their spirits as well, leaving them feeling so worthless that they can't easily return to normal life” (8). There is a huge problem with this idea of trafficking women for sex – not much is being done by the government to control it or even stop it altogether.
The fact of the matter is that this idea of human trafficking is in fact slavery. These women are forced into prostitution. Just as slavery with blacks was viewed as an issue and handled, slavery of women should be considered as well. In my opinion, the government should put an end to this trafficking. Some people have become aware of this issue and are acting upon it. For example, “the new director of the trafficking office, John Miller, has bludgeoned foreign governments, telling them to curb trafficking or face sanctions” (9). I believe that there should be laws against sex slavery and if broken, there should be consequences. Some other obvious solutions could be “pressure on foreign governments to crack down on brothels with underage girls or those held against their will, promotion of condoms to keep prostitutes alive and above all, literacy and job programs to raise the status of girls and women” (10). Slavery was an issue of the past that should have been ended when the slavery of African Americans was abolished – this includes sex slavery.
This whole idea of sex slavery goes against the views of liberalism. However, my view on this issue is compatible with liberalism. Liberalists, as well as I, believe in individual freedom, and idea which is clearly being broken with sex slavery. “But the real mystery is why most Democrats, liberals and feminist groups have been complacent on trafficking” (9).

Don't Just Stand Back and Watch

The United States should clearly step in when situations like Cambodia arises. The super powerful and extremely wealthy state has obligations to the rest of the world, especially children specifically girls in this instance, to not allow the inhumane behaviors to continue. If America does not step in it seems as if we support the present day slavery that is occurring. Sex slavery or human trafficking is a sickening problem, that cannot be unrecognized and left unaddressed. Unfortunately, many Americans spend too much time concentrating on their selves instead of observing the situations occurring within the entire world. I understand that America should address the problems occurring within the United States, but I do not believe that should mean we should not come to other countries rescues when they are in extreme disarray. Yet, this problem not only exists in Cambodia but in America, as well. Although this problem is urgent, we must slowly and surely help the Cambodia women who are being sold for purposes of desire. First, we must provide support to the Cambodian women by letting them know that the United States wishes to assist them in coming out of their current state. Education must be a top priority when addressing the women. If women are provided the opportunity of getting an education, that does not force them into prostitution as a career, then certainly a solution has come about. Education will not only teach them basic skills so that they can get and maintain a job, but also teach the importance of using a condom. Perhaps the education should also teach about the prevention of STDs and AIDS. Also, America as the superpower has the ability to crack down on the Cambodia government and say that the laws need to be more strict when it comes to prostitution and kidnapping within their country. Whether the establishment of laws will help alleviate the problem or not, is still questionable. Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to think that America could buy every girl out of prostitution in Cambodia. But that does not mean we, as a humane country, should not step in and provide relief. As Jefferson says, borrowing from Locke’s Second Treatise, every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in the state of Cambodia girls in brothels have known of the three. We as a liberalist society should not condone the happenings in Cambodia, and should not allow this to further. Although, we should not intervene with the use of military that will only distort the problem more.

A Question of our own Rights.

Some, like myself, would initially react to a story like this thinking, "We got to save them!" But within the borders of liberalism, a few things must be addressed.

First, something of this importance should be decided on by majority consent. I think that is somewhat obvious: why help people when no one really wants to. After consent is won, the amount of resources available must be gauged to make sure that by helping them, we don't dig ourselves six feet under when the country we help is driving BMW's and were enslaving citizens to whore them out. Preserving resources is not just something a liberal government should do for its citizens, but any government, for any government should be in the service of its citizens and its own self; again, it is a waste to drive yourself into the ground.

Now, if both of these things are achieved, there is no reason to prevent aid to any country with some form of unwanted suppression on their citizens. More philanthropic acts like those of Kristof would help the people of any area doing poorly. But why should we do it? Well, if we have the resources, but never used them while people who could be potentially saved by them are violated against, it would be somewhat of a waste to hold them back. That is an idea that Locke identifies: wasted resources are a crime against man. So if were just sitting on a giant pile of money, it would be ideal to use it.

Now, should America do it today? I believe not. If we ideally had the resources available, it would be something we should do. But unfortunately with the way our economy is, it would be unfair to citizens at home to expend it on other countries when we, being citizens of America, should be the primary concern of our government. It may seem harsh to turn down such hideous right violations, but it is not worth jeopardizing the rights of citizens of our own country. Whether this is a pitfall of liberalism or not, this is how I view the situation of a liberal standpoint. A government should be in the business of protecting its citizen's (note citizen's) rights. It is the citizen that comes first. which I think it a liberal view that protects the rights of us, the people of America, at home.

Slavery? In 2009?!

     Sometimes, I feel as though the US should not assume the role of “international policeman.”  Situations such as this, which are going on throughout the world should not be neglected though.  Hundreds of women are falling victim to sexually transmitted diseases and millions are being violated each day.  The most painful fact that I extrapolated from the articles is that the women Kristof rescued will never be able to trust people as easily as they used to.  This is very upsetting to here; therefore we should devise a plan to deal with this horrifying issue. 

     The most obvious action to turn to would be sanctions.  We could impose sanctions on the participating countries or expel  them from free trade agreements and the like.  This might not work out well so we should brainstorm some other ideas.  We could set up stations of peacekeeping troops at the places that Kristof describes in which there are girls attempting to sell “souvenirs.”  These peacekeepers, employed by the UN, may be able to preserve some of the rights of the women at these stations.  While the women are at these stations the peacekeepers could ensure that the women are not publicy ridiculed or abused. 

     Sadly it seems as though the US cannot do much in this situation.  It is hard to stop a crisis abroad when we are not aware of the customs of a particular country of the norms.  The only immediate actions we could take would be to impose sanctions or employ peacekeeping troops.  Although I am extremely against human trafficking and would really wish that would could save each and every one of these women, I just feel it would be extremely difficult to police these countries from our home base, the US. 

     My view is not exactly compatible with liberalism.  My ideal goal would be to save (and protect the rights of) each and every one of these women, but everyone knows in reality that this is not possible.  We  must start taking steps to help save as many women as we can by threatening the countries who support human trafficking.  A few hundred women are worth more than none.