PSCI 3620 take home final PDF

Preview

Summary

Comparing Hitler's Mein Kampf with Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, as well as comparing ideologies of Karl Marx and Emma Gold, early Anarchist. ...

Description

Daniel Bucksbaum PSCI 3620 Dr. Hauptmann April 26, 2017 Samuel Huntington describes in The Clash of Civilizations? His vision of the world’s different cultures and civilizations continuing to divide and sharpen their edges until there is an inevitable clash among them. Huntington discusses in this text the political importance of one’s cultural identity. He beliefs that many aspects and factors in one’s life can contribute to the differences between himself and other people, but in the end, a broad categorization of culture and civilization is what will inevitably divide people into conflict in the final phase of conflict in this world. He believes that the clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. “Civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. These include Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization” (Huntington, 757). Huntington stresses that each civilization may hold within itself sub-civilizations. Outlining examples, he describes that “Western civilization has two major variants, European and North American, and Islam has its Arab, Turkic, and Malay subdivisions” (Huntington, 757). Huntington describes Western civilization as the undisputed dominant civilization today; politically, economically, and militarily. A small group of western countries (sometimes including Japan) have incredibly disproportionate control over global issues. “Global political and security issues are effectively settled by a directorate of the United States, Britain and

France, world economic issues by a directorate of the Untied States, Germany, and Japan, all of which maintain extraordinarily close relations with each other to the exclusion of lesser and largely non-Western countries” (Huntington, 766). Many decisions made by the U.N. Security Council and the International Monetary Fund are presented to be in the best interest of the world, when in reality they are formulated and implemented by the West, and serve the interests of the West. Huntington cites how the U.N., IMF, and other Western established “global” institutions serve the Wests’ interests throughout the world, and legitimize some of its behavior in recent history. The U.N. legitimized the West’s use of force in driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, protecting oil supplies of interest to the West, and eliminating Iraq’s sophisticated weapons supply and ability to produce such weapons. “It also produced the quite unprecedented action by the United States, Britain and France in getting the Security Council to demand that Libya hand over the Pan Am 103 bombing suspects and then to impose sanctions when Libya refused. After defeating the largest Arab army, the West did not hesitate to throw its weight around in the Arab world. The West in effect is using international institutions, military power and economic resources to run the world in ways that will maintain Western predominance, protect Western interests and promote Western political and economic values” (Huntington, 766). Huntington explains how the U.S.’s sometimes aggressive promotion of its values (individualism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, separation of church and state, and other liberal values) in many cases is responded with hostility by foreign cultures, including in the Arab world. This has resulted in reactionary support for religious fundamentalist groups, against what is seen as a new form of imperialism. Adolf Hitler held similar views to Huntington’s, with his belief in “one of the most patent principles of Nature’s rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on Earth”

(Hitler, 452). Hitler did not specifically state his beliefs for segregation of people, but he characterized this by referring to the flaws of mixing outside of the Aryan race, and why such an act was so detrimental to the survival of the Aryan race and their nation-state. Hitler emphasized in Mein Kampf the significance of a strong, national identity when discussing the power of the German nation-state. He believed that German/Aryan blood was far superior to all other peoples and ethnicities, and that inter-racial mixing was slowly denigrating the white, Aryan race. “North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale… The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood” (Hitler, 454). With this, it can be easily seen that Hitler strongly supports the idea that some racial groups, nationalities, and cultures are superior and inferior to others. He would support Huntington’s viewpoint that the Western civilization, speaking more broadly than Hitler’s ideal “nation-race”, is by far dominant and superior to all other races, or in Huntington’s terms, civilizations. Hitler would surely believe, like Huntington, that focusing one’s resources on the advancement of one’s own nation, race, culture, or civilization is crucial to preserving one’s own nation, race, or culture for future generations. He would surely emphasize Huntington’s apocalyptic attitude towards civilizations, while making his case for the superiority of the Aryan race as well as the Germanic culture over all else. Karl Marx would have staunchly disagreed with Huntington’s view of the world being systematically divided into seven or eight civilizations, predetermined to be facing an inevitable

worldwide conflict in the future. Marx believed that the enemy of the proletariat was not any foreign leader or country, but simply the elite bourgeoisie class. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels outline why exactly communists are distinguished from other working class parties: “In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front of the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality” (Marx and Engels, 302). Also contrasting Hitler’s emphasis on a strong national identity, Marx and Engels believe that the ultimate struggle for economic freedom for the proletariat exists in all countries, regardless of state or nationality. Workers of the proletariat should not be focused on competing amongst each other in ways of national dominance, while the bourgeoisie continues to oppress members of the working class in all countries. Marx and Engels even quote in The Communist Manifesto that “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality” (Marx and Engels, 306). Marx would see Huntington’s view of an imminent “clash of civilizations” as harmful and an obstacle to achieving worldwide revolution in overthrowing the bourgeoisie elite, and simply an idea meant to distract the proletariat from achieving their true goal. 2.

In Emma Goldman’s Anarchism: What it Really Stands For, anarchism is described as

“The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-0made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary” (Goldman, 360). Emma Goldman recognizes why many may quickly reject the idea of anarchism. Goldman states that those who criticize anarchism simply do it out of ignorance, and are uninformed about what anarchism truly stands for; that is what she attempts to clarify in Anarchism: What It Really Stands For. In Goldman’s own words when describing others’ criticisms of anarchism, she says that “First, Anarchism is impractical, though a beautiful

ideal. Second, anarchism stands for violence and destruction, hence it must be repudiated as vile and dangerous” (Goldman, 360). Goldman describes anarchism as a peaceful, egalitarian, utopian society in which there is no violence, and a self-policing society. It is her belief that all crime and violence in a society is brought upon by government and its actions taken against citizens. This is why Goldman describes her anarchism as strictly anti-government. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels outline specifically in The Communist Manifesto the arguing points that some may make in criticism or disapproval of their ideology. They mostly express how it can be quite easy to have misunderstandings about communism and socialism. One such example is quoted with regards to the role of women in society; “But you communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.” This is, as the writers put it, an ignorant misconception of how women are currently viewed by the bourgeoisie, and how they would be treated in a communist society. “The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production… He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production” (Marx and Engels, 306). They later go on to say that “The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial” (306). Michael Oakeshott describes conservatism in On Being Conservative as a disposition, in which one is simply content with the standard of life, and being hesitant to welcome drastic or rapid change, for fear of unexpected consequences. Oakeshott explains: “To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery,, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss” (Oakeshott, 148). He makes it very clear that a conservative would much prefer a small and limited change to

a rapid or drastic one, if one at all. He believes that this understanding is rooted in human nature; that humans are naturally lazy, and that change is tiring and requires significant effort. He also explains the viewpoint of those who do not share this position, and how they may see human nature as entirely the opposite. Oakeshott describes why some critics of conservatism see change and progress as entirely necessary, contrary to the conservative view. “In general, the fascination of what is new is felt far more keenly than the comfort of what is familiar. We are disposed to think that nothing important is happening unless great innovations are afoot, and that what is not being improved must be deteriorating. There is a positive prejudice in favor of the yet untried. We readily presume that all change is, somehow, for the better, and we are easily persuaded that all the consequences of our innovating activity are either themselves improvements or at least a reasonable price to pay for getting what we want” (Oakeshott, 152). In this quote, Oakeshott explains why it is understandable that many people so strongly disagree with this disposition and viewpoint. It is understandable that many people view change as the driving force of mankind, and that progress is what advances society, not timid reluctance to change.

Bibliography Love, Nancy Sue. Dogmas and Dreams: A Reader in Modern Political Ideologies. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2011. Print.

Word count: 1785...