The proletariat is a class of common workers who have no ownership or control of the means of production of the society. They own nothing but the right to sell their own labor. The proletariat is not necessarily synonymous with "the lower class," since "lower class" can mean any kind of poverty stricken class of people. And they every single day regardless of their job and country they are exploited.
Political science is a subject that deals with an individual in relation to a state and a government. It also means a systematized body of knowledge of the state and government in all its aspects.
Political science is a science by definition. In practice, it is a science because it consists of two elements:
While there are some elements of political science, especially political theory, that may rely upon normative assessment of the politics, its procedures, and its outcomes, most work in the field consists of quantitative and qualitative analyses of either models or data from empirical sources.
Politics, the field of study which analyses political process, ideologies, and actors, is both an art and a science.
A true science requires the ability to conduct repeatable, verifiable experiments. Political science lacks that, because you can conduct the same election or the same speech (etc.) with different results.
No, opportunity cost is not the same as marginal cost, since opportunity cost represent the expected utility loss from the highest-valued alternative given-up for an action. In this case, that not only includes marginal costs, but also fixed costs and marginal benefits foregone.
Marginal cost is the cost of producing an additional widget when you're already producing several of them. This must cover direct costs such as wages and direct overheads, but can ignore return on capital and other fixed costs.
Opportunity cost is the hypothetical loss that we would incur should we not proceed with a particular investment.
We could buy a painting in the expectation that it would rise in value. That is the value of that opportunity. If we instead to invest in widgets, the returns from them are real.
In either case, we can only buy one of the items, and the hypothetical loss from forgoing the other item is the opportunity cost of the course we chose.
Because you probably live in a free, democratic society where the liberties granted to it's citizens have reversed into one hyper-critical of its systems of governance as opposed to socialist states such as N Korea, where its citizens live in constant awe and admiration of their leader and believe themselves to live in the most technologically advanced nation in the world. Freedom affords the luxury of contempt for the mechanism of its existence. Hence you couldn't possibly be a patriot, because you are entirely too free to appreciate it.
Besides, in many countries, big-talking flag-waving patriotism is more often than not a defense reaction: individuals with very little self-confidence, or people who feel threatened or suffer from a fear of invasion - either from an aggressive neighbouring state or because of many alien immigrants around them - will often feel a little less insecure when they group together in places, political parties, forums, sports clubs, etc, where they can praise the greatness of their nation, celebrate its glorious past and pledge allegiance to its values... But invariably a few individuals will feel things are going a bit too far for their own taste and they have had enough of it - hence your question!
Probably because we hold contradictory views on the subject of patriotism. On the one hand, Western citizens have been taught that flagrant nationalism, imperialism, and social Darwinism and dangerous and corrupt ideologies but, at the same time, it seems as if Americans are taught to support them under threat of not being 'patriotic' enough.
Simply put, power is acquired in a democracy by being elected to office. However, there are positions in an elected office that are more powerful and have a lot of (to use a Chicago word) klout. For example, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is an extremely powerful individual even though he or she is a member of the House of Representatives and not a Senator. This chairman's job is to oversee proposals for laws. If a proposal does not pass the Ways and Means Committee it cannot be sent to the House for a vote into law.
It is true in that it exists. Therefore, it is not illusory or false.
leaders take power in democracy through votes they obtain from the civil society
No- it is not a good idea. For one thing, such elections are rarely honest, I do not know of any country that freely decided to elect presidents for life. What usually happens if that a president is elected for a fixed term and then gets the constitution changed to make him president for life.
However, if some country did democratically elect a president for life, how would they know in advance who would be a good president?
The primary problem here may be lack of accountability. A "president for life" has no real incentive to change his behavior, since he has no possibility of losing the position, except through violent overthrow or resignation. In such a position, the president (by human nature) may tend to accumulate wealth and power, with no (or little) regard for their constituents. The saying that power corrupts has some truth to it even if the leader is a true statesman. Even a good president can change as he gets older. He may become senile or even insane. More likely, he will run out of ideas. He will develop a mind set that may become out of date and not work as the country changes. He may just get old and sick and either do nothing or let others make all the decisions.
A revolutionary is a radical supporter of political or social revolution against society, regardless of ethics and morality. A revolutionary is in many ways similar to an anarchist, one who favors abolishing any form of government not of his/her choosing in spite the wishes of the majority.
No, electing someone to a position for life has some serious drawbacks, and unless the system they work inside of is designed to counteract these drawbacks, then it definitely can be a very bad thing.
The primary problem is lack of accountability. A "president for life" has no real incentive to change their behavior, since they have no possibility of losing the position, except through violent overthrow or resignation. In such a position, the president (by human nature) will tend to accumulate wealth and power, with no (or little) regard for their constituents.
Overall, even in the best system, electing someone "president for life" turns out about as well as having a monarch. Which, historically speaking, is pretty bad for everyone except the monarch.
Currently, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario is the Honourable David C. Onley.
He was appointed by Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, the Governor General of Canada, on the advice of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada, on 5 September 2007, and represents Her Majesty the Queen of Canada in Right of Ontario.
A group of like-minded people who act is this way is usually known as a party.
There are many theories on why polities breakdown into revolutions. Some include:
Unilateral powers give the president the ability to create lawful policies without the consent of Congress.
Religion, as with many other human ideologies, is not purely a personal thing but also a form of communication and identification. In society, therefore, religion often encompasses not only belief but active expression and participation in affairs involved with that religion (which vary based on the religion in question). Because religion, in my opinion, has this element, there is a motivation for people with belief systems to wish for protections in their religious lives. In history, this often has taken place when a minority religious group (e.g.) Protestants; Muslims; Hebrews) have been repressed in their action by the majority and, therefore, wish to seek formal legal enforcement to protect their ability to follow their religion.
The Archipelagic Doctrine is a specification in the Filipino Constitution of 1973 defining the boundaries of the country. It stated:
"[T]he national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago with all the islands and waters embraced therein and all the other territories belonging to the Philippines..."
This doctrine means, therefore, that the country, with its thousands of islands and many seas, should be considered as a political unit for reasons of history, law, geography, economics, and security. Also, when questions involving territorial conflicts arise, the Philippines uses this doctrine to support its territorial claims.
For parties that have chairpeople, they are usually the head of the party itself and administrate its day-to-day operations.
Disclaimer: political parties in the United States generally lacked the kind of ideological unity and discipline found in other Western countries, so it is problematic to claim the Democratic Party or Democrats support any particular ideological platform when, in fact, they may vary intensely (as may Republicans).
The question misstates fact. In actuality, Democrats generally support lower taxes where possible. The tradeoff will always be whether one wants the government to do more, such as maintaining Social Security, inspecting our food, enforcing our laws or keeping our roads and bridges in good repair. You only get what you pay for and you must pay for what you get. Most of us want more of these services. Currently, we are about a trillion dollars behind on infrastructure repairs according to a major engineering society. Cutting back further imperils us all.
Tax withholding has actually gone down under a portion of the Stimulus program, a fact that Republicans have studiously avoided. That puts more money in your pocket right now. There is some support for a rise in personal taxes for those making in excess of $250,000 on amounts over that which puts their tax level back where it was when Clinton was President. We were pretty prosperous then and we balanced our budget. Fact: if all tax cuts were abandoned, we'd pay down our entire US debt in less than ten years! Fact: our debt is lower, as related to our Gross Domestic Product than half of all Western Countries. Our credit rating is so good that we just issued bonds paying no effective interest!
Government under Obama has not grown, but it did grow significantly under two Republican standard bearers: Reagan and Bush II. Dems do, however, support increased regulation to reign in corporate abuse of individuals. Abuse is best illustrated in regard to two pieces of legislation bitterly fought by Republicans: health insurance and financial reform. In these cases, the regulations coming from them will stop abusive rate increases and caps on coverage on the health side and abusive fees and interest rate increases on the financial side. By the way, there never were death panels! Also, the efficiencies included in the health law should save the taxpayers about a trillion dollars in the next ten years.
Sovereignty is the independence obtained by a region /country in terms of area/bounderies,freedom from all types of influences with in as well as external. But the fact is it can be maintained if you are might as it is right.
Europe in general, particularly Scandinavia, is simply more socialist than the United States. Where an American conservative would see the Democrat party as borderline communist, understand that from a European's perspective, the Democrats are barely left wing. They are marginally more to the left than right, and it all comes down to perspective. Saying that Democrats are Liberal and Republicans are Conservative would be disingenuous. These are only truths for those within the United States who have the same American perspective. The common example would be: Find me a Democrat within America, and I'll find a European right wing that's more liberal.
The main difference between American and European political parties is that with the primacy of the Parliamentary system in Europe (vs the Presidential system in the USA), Europe has a much larger number of viable parties in each country. That is, in practically all European countries, there exist at least 3 parties, and, in many cases, 5 or 6 parties can carry enough votes to win representation in the Legislature.
Thus, European parties tend to be more narrow in their political agendas, as they wish to appeal to specific interest groups; in a system with larger number of parties, the most successful political strategy seems to be to target specific interest groups, rather than go for larger broad-based appeal. Parliamentary systems generally work on the theory of proportional representation systems, where representation is relatively correlated with the amount of total vote that party received, so getting SOME vote will get a party SOME power. So parties tend to have a narrow political spectrum focus, which insure them at least a share of power.
In the 2-party American system, the opposite strategy works best: attempt to appeal to the largest possible group of ideals, as getting into power requires the majority of any vote - failing to win a majority means your party gets NO political power. So, American parties tend to have opposing general philosophies which then morph into much larger sets, in an effort to attract voters from the political middle ground (ideologically-speaking). American parties thus have much "wider" ideologies than European parties.
Also, as mentioned above, the actual ideals which the American major parties espouse do NOT fit well within the same-named European parties, for many cultural reasons. The American's view of Conservative vs Liberal is very, very different than the European view of the same terms.
I would argue that Chanakya is the father of political science in India.
Ours is the age politics. The government has become the business of everybody. Whether we like it or not, we are part of the state from the moment we are born to the day we die. Our birth, marriage, and death must be registered with the state. Secondly, it will broaden our knowledge about our duties and obligations as a citizen, what government is, what state is and discuss political issues and concerns. We can even criticize effectively cases of incompetence, dishonesty or unscrupulous in government. Thirdly, we will know about our cultural backgrounds for "history is past of politics and politics is present of history."
It is an acknowledge of understanding about state and government. It also gives knowledge of right to choose.
1) Economic: motives included the desire to make money, to expand and control foreign trade, to create new markets for products, to acquire raw materials and cheap labor, to compete for investments and resources, and to export industrial technology and transportation methods.
2) Political: motives were based on a nation's desire to gain power, to compete with other European countries, to expand territory, to exercise military force, to gain prestige by winning colonies, and to boost national pride and security.
3) Religious: motives included the desire to spread Christianity, to protect European missionaries in other lands, to spread European values and moral beliefs, to educate peoples of other cultures, and to end slave trade in Africa.
4) Exploratory: motives were based on the desire to explore unknown or uncharted territory, to conduct scientific research, to conduct medical searches for the causes and treatment of diseases, to go on an adventure, and to investigate unknown lands and cultures.
The motive of imperialism was money land and resources. The Europeans wanted to gain more land and use the resources on that territory to gain more riches. Politically Britain wanted to obtain revenge and world prestige. If they obtained China's wealth such as their silk, they could exchange it for gold, which would boost them economically as well.
They were also motivated to spread their religion of Christianity and their style of government. The most important motive was to safeguard and protect both their their lands and their country.
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.