Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Power In Government
The view of the world is different in the mind of every individual, but at times these views correspond establishing research schools. In the world of politics, research schools have different ontological and epistemological assumptions which allows them to view the state and power differently. Their primary concern is to figure out the nature of the world and be able to figure out what one is going to focus on and disregard. The four main research school are pluralism, rational choice, institutionalism and Marxism. Pluralism embraces societal values, culture and interests which they believe are the driven force of political outcomes. Rational choice focuses on the individuals’ self interest and self awareness and believes that an individual is the fundamental power in society. Institutionalism owes the worlds’ functions to rules, norms and law and centralizes the state as the most important actor in modern society. Finally, Marxism believes in the power of class structures affecting humans in society. All of these research schools have opposing views on how the world operates and how it should operate in different circumstances. This paper will examine research schools of Marxism and pluralism that are poles apart in regards to their beliefs on the origin of power in society.THESIS Pluralism expresses the importance of the individual’s interests which develops a need to participate in civil society and influence politics. # On the other hand, Marxism reveals the structural and unequal power buried within social classes that enables one group to be more powerful than another.# The principles of both of these research schools will be applied and analyzed in the Federal Government’s policy with regards to the regulation of the Ca...
... middle of paper ...
...under the Finance Minister Paul Martin, this proposal was rejected and representatives of the proposal felt ‘political persecution’.# Martin believed that there was insufficient evidence that the banking system will be enhanced post-bank merger, and discarded the issue of foreign competition.# The government also feared future failures within the system which will be much more difficult to restore,# “the bigger they get, the harder they’ll fall.”# The banks disagreed and claimed that if this merger did not take place the chances of Canada as global financial centre would deteriorate and it would be absolutely unfavourable for businesses in the long term.#
According to pluralists, the bank merger proposal has disregarded the interests of the public who own the shareholders of the market economy and therefore the public’s outlook on this issue must be considered.#
The issue of whether or not America should have a National Bank is one that is debated throughout the whole beginning stages of the modern United States governmental system. In the 1830-1840’s two major differences in opinion over the National Bank can be seen by the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whig parties. The Jacksonian Democrats did not want a National Bank for many reasons. One main reason was the distrust in banks instilled in Andrew Jackson because his land was taken away. Another reason is that the creation of a National Bank would make it more powerful than...
First, Andrew Jackson, aimed towards all of the strict constructionists, brought up the point that the formation of a national bank is not in the Constitution, and therefore there is no reason why we should be able to use it. President Jackson also said how the national bank is “rebellious of the rights of the states, and dangerous to the liberties of the people”. Jackson could see that the bank was a monopoly, and the danger that this could bring. He said how the bank is run primarily by 25 people, 20 of which are elected by the bank stock holders, the other five are elected by the bank officials themselves, who in the long run can keep reelecting themselves, and corruption is bound to follow.
Politics is defined as “the way people decide who gets what, when, where, how, and why—without resorting to violence” (McDonough 20). The author asserts that politics is the alternative pathway for a society to make decisions besides choosing violent means to go about doing so. Instead of using force, politicians use words and the method of persuasion in order to get what they want. When a society has a group of people who feel they are not fairly represented by their elected officials, they will often turn to violence in order to implement changes to the political process that will put in place the rules and regulations they are seeking.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s policies haven’t really been implemented to the extent that regulators would have liked. Although the legislation takes many steps in addressing systematic risks in the United States financial system and improving coordination among regulators, some critics believe that alternative options might have been more effective. The coming years will give us a better understanding of how well the Dodd-Frank Act addressed these concerns.
Among the books discussed over the duration of the course, the most recurrent theme has been the dominance of power relationships and the construction of institutions driven by power. The framework for these socially ingrained power relationships that has been transformed over time has been laid out by Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish. According to Foucault, power is everywhere, dispersed in institutions and spread through discourses. The state functions on a number of dispositions which are hierarchical, naturalized and are the modes of power for the power elite. The result of this social and economic control is observed in nations and across nations through the beauty myth, the prison system, the creation of informal systems or the overarching cultural hegemony and attempted reform of the non-western world. The key to the success of this has been through the misrecognition of the constructed systems of power which are instated through very fundamental mediums that they are not questioned. These structures of control by the state are adopted and reproduced from the base of the familiar, through arrangements and dispositions that pose themselves as natural, as they are embodied and programmed in the play of language, in common sense, and in all what is socially taken for granted. In this essay I will examine these above mentioned structures of the power and how these models are used to discipline individuals and states.
In contemporary times, the rise of capitalism as a dominant economic trend and its ravenous demand to accumulate sources from new markets, has led to the idea of merging political and economic power into one, which is democratic capitalism or otherwise illustrated as “a system where markets allocate income according to efficiency while governments redistribute income according to political demand."(Iversen, 2006). The advancements mentioned earlier, have given ground for questions concerning the possible compatibility of the political ideology which is democracy and the economic ideology capitalism and how would they affect one another. This mergence could be examined in recent times, whereas in the past around the start of the nineteenth century it was considered as inappropriate and unlikely to happen. This paper aims to demonstrate to what degree are democracy and capitalism compatible, by examining the various areas of conflict of the two ideologies, how has capitalism affected the democratic system in the United States and does actually global capitalism have an impact on the developing countries democracies.
"[The banks] were so singularly unrelated and independent of each other that the majority of them had simultaneously engaged in a life and death contest with each other, forgetting for the time being the solidarity of their mutual interest and their common responsibility to the community at large. Two-thirds of the banks of the country entered upon an internecine struggle to obtain cash, had ceased to extend credit to their customers, had suspended cash payments and were hoarding such money as they had." (Born...,12).
The structure of power in society is a vital part of understanding sociology. The two main theories that differentiate this structure are Mills’ theory of a power elite and Riesman’s contrasting theory of veto groups, or pluralism. Both theories are often found in varying degrees when considering important public decisions, such as the Hoover Redevelopment Plan or the University Village Plan. Generally, one of these theories is more applicable and relevant to certain public decisions and developments depending on the issue. While both of these theories played a part in the Hoover Redevelopment Plan and the University Village Plan, the power elite theory is ultimately more responsible for the institution of these developments.
Society is highly stratified when considering social classes i.e. - upper class, middle class, lower class, and working class citizens. That being said, not everyone has the same access to the superstructure; thus creating tension. The largest problem when considering structure and agency is the constant struggle and negotiation of power inequality. Among the asymmetry of power are two major disparities; class and gender. Thinking as a critical theorist, one must consider the individual’s participation in the public sphere; “The word means a false view of the world that is in the interests of the powerful citizens in order to keep the subordinate classes oppressed” (Habermas, 10). Though the public sphere is virtually a democratic sphere where ideas can circulate and opinions are formed there are certain restrictions when referring to lower classes and women and thus how their agencies as individuals are limited.
Born from the revolutions of 1848 throughout Europe, Marxism sought to end the class struggles that were destroying the continent. The solution to the problems of all nations occurred to Marx to be Socialism, a branch that is presently known as Marxism. Under this seemingly “utopian” socioeconomic system, equality was granted to all citizens who were in essence a community of one. “. . . universal free education; arming of the people; a progressive income tax; limitations upon inheritance; state ownership of banks. . .”(Palmer 506). These rights of which constituted Marxism eventually went on to be incorporated in Leninism and modern-day socialism. At least in its beginning, the intent of Marxism and the Communist League were noble towards the goal o...
“Politics as a Vocation” is a lecture written by Max Weber, a German political economist whose beliefs and ideas on politics influenced many. The universe of his writing is focused around the nature of politics, and the way people were involved and influenced by politics, which was eventually molded into the modern politics, as we know it today. Weber explains that the focus of his lecture is surrounded between two beliefs of politics, that being leadership and relation of a state. Weber mentions that “every state is founded on force” (25) and how that force coexists with the idea of violence, and if without it that there wouldn’t be a state. “Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (32-4). Weber also mentions that territory is another description of a state, being described in a physical force, as the one and only right of the use violence. “Hence, ‘politics’ for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state” (37-9). This quote explains politics as either in a leadership form in self-seeking power for there own prestige, or for the sake of others.
The societies of the modern day are shaped largely around the economic model or infrastructure that has been implement into the lives of citizens. These varying “economic models” alter the ways of domestic culture, and thus serve to be warranted much more attention and examination. Capitalism and Socialism are the two dominant ideologies that seem to invoke the opposite ends of the spectrum in the societal effect aspect. The far right capitalist, evoking a connotation of free business and anti-regulatory economic growth, comprised of a great deal of the Western world and provided a high risk-reward system that created a great number of wealthy elite and even more low-class blue collar workers. Conventional wisdom leads one to obviously find the opposing mindset with Socialism and its many degrees. The left wing socialist was characterized by a controlled economy and a strict government market. This system was heralded as system with no losers and social equality; thus, a gap-less population with a high standard of life. The course of this work will provide and explain the differences between Capitalism and Socialism; therefore, in the conclusion, the two societal roles will be defined. This will lead to a much more conclusive conclusion when examining, promoting, or denying either system.
The division of society into two separate classes and capitalism are interlinked, one cannot function to the best of its ability without the other, but it is not without its problems. The repressive mechanisms of the law and the capitalist system has brought about serious challenges to the existence of the role, the power, and the
Marxism is a set of theories, or a system of thought and analysis, developed by Karl Marx in the nineteenth century in response to the Western industrial revolution and the rise of industrial capitalism as the predominant economic mode. Like feminist theory, Marxist theory is directed at social change; Marxists want to analyze social relations in order to change them, in order to alter what they see are the gross injustices and inequalities created by capitalist economic relations. My capsule summary of the main ideas of Marxism, however, will focus on the theoretical aspects more than on how that theory has been and is applicable to projects for social change.
Research philosophy, refers to the development of knowledge adopted by the researchers in their research (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). In other words, it is the theory that used to direct the researcher for conducting the procedure of research design, research strategy, questionnaire design and sampling (Malhotra, 2009). It is very important to have a clear understanding of the research philosophy so that we could examine the assumptions about the way we view the world, which are contained in the research philosophy we choose, knowing that whether they are appropriate or not (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), three major ways of thinking about research philosophy are examined: ontology, epistemology and axiology. Each of them carries significant differences which will have an impact on the way we consider the research procedures. Ontology, “is concerned with nature of reality”, while epistemology “concerns what constitutes acceptable knowledge in a field of study and axiology “studies judgements about value” (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009, p110, p112, p116). This study is intent on creating some “facts” from objective evaluations which are made by the subjects. Therefore, epistemology will be chosen for this study as the way of thinking about the research philosophy.