Political Theory

Karl Marx was the creator of the economic & political system called Communism. In the middle of the 19th century Karl Marx, a German writer and economist founded what many historians call modern socialism. He was exiled from Prussia when the so-called 1848 Revolution failed in Europe and he settled in England.

Marx wrote several books that he believed was the solution to the exploitation of workers in the industrialized nations in Europe. He co-authored the Communist Manifesto with German industrialist Friedrich Engels. This was published in 1848. Marx's "socialism" was different from classical socialist thought. He believed that the socialists of Europe and eventually the Fabien Socialists of England were not propagandizing a real solution to the Capitalist economic system. The socialists that envisioned a peaceful transition from Capitalism to Socialism was an Utopian dream. Marx's version of placing the means of production in the hands of the proletarian workers called for a violent revolution. Marx followed the Communist Manifesto with an economic tome titled Das Kapital. Then later his Critique of Political Economy was published. the revolution however had to be in an industrial country that had a large population of workers and labor unions that understood his economics. England and Germany were the nations he & Engels believed had the best chance of success. As history tells us, no industrial nation ever had a revolution of the proletariat. Russia and later China were unsuitable for the eventual revolution as their economies were based on agriculture, not the numbers of workers & the industry they supported.

Are universalvand the foundation of all legitimate government.

what were the three principles of the people

No, democracy only ensures that the people have a right to vote. They vote for candidates, who are usually selected with little popular input, such as in some of the "third world" democracies In the United States of America there is more popular input because of our system of primary elections. Other countries may also use this system, but I can only speak for the U.S.

Actually Pan was never in the film at all, there was a faun but his name is not Pan. Pan was a Greek god in the form of a faun and this can explain why the faun is a faun and how he is the guardian to the Labyrinth to look for the princesses soul. Back to the question, no Pan doesn't die and nether does the faun with many names.

Pan (as in the character) is a roman mythological creature that is half human and half goat (faun), that is why he is dressed with horns etc. In roman mythology he lives in the forest and is very rarely seen, he also plays the Panpipes. Also in Greek Mythology the word "pan" is the god of Shepard and hilltop animals (goats) so the two interlock.

The Constitution did. The Declaration of Dependence was a clarion call to get the people of the country to fight for their freedom. The Constitution shaped our laws and everything that came after that.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

Intersectionality is the idea that various different social differences that a person may have will compound into a worse problem. For example, race and gender is a commonly discussed intersectional issue in feminist circles. These feminists will argue that in American Society that Blacks are more oppressed than Whites AND that Women are more oppressed then Men. As a result, Black Women are doubly oppressed since they are oppressed both based on their Blackness and their Femininity.

Opponents of Intersectionality or of Third-Wave Feminism in general have jokingly called this stacking of different levels of oppression as "victimology poker", where it is simply a game to create the most "oppressed person" (i.e. a Transsexual Woman Black Lesbian Muslim with Native American Ancestry) and value the experiences of people outside of these oppressed paradigms as less important in an almost racist way.

Please see these three YouTube videos, one that is Pro-Intersectionality, one that is Anti-Intersectionality, and one that is critical but not wholly opposed to Intersectionality and come to your own decision about whether this theory is an accurate descriptor of reality.

Nope. That would be Greece.

Greece did not exist until the 1800's, however Greek city states were democratic in the pre Roman period.

China and Sri Lanka

change in corrupt political system

they have to make important decisions for their kingdom like finding food if there is a shortage, and helping their people, and decidingwhat is best for their kingdom.

In the United States, what serves as a "national legislature" is Congress. The term "National Legislature" was used in Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" to describe the Congress of an alternate universe America in which a dystopia ruled by bureaucrats was in place.

In sociology proactive social movements are initial social movements that are created in order to change society.Reactive social movements are the resistance to the proactive social movements.

Military Imperialism is a type of military policiy which calls for the creation of an "imperial empire", as it could be called. Usualy such policies exist in countries where there is a diety or soveirgn figure, and some examples are the military imperialism of Japan in the 1930's and 40's, during which time the Japanese military invaded many nearby islands, and large swaths of mainland China in an attempt to create a vast Pacific empire.

Marxists can be many things: revolutionaries, politicians, academics, historians, poets, etc. The only aspect that you might say brings their beliefs/actions together is a sympathy with those who wish to overturn the existing capitalist order of society by drawing upon the understandings laid down by Marx and Engels over 40-50 years in latter half of the 19th century. In these writings they aimed to show how the history of all existing society is structured by class conflict over the materials that reproduce that society. This understanding is closely related to socialism - which was around in one form or another a long long time before Marxism. Loosely described socialism was associated with a diverse collection of beliefs that became more and more prevalent in the era of the Enlightenment (late 17th-18th centuries). Some of the great figures in this were Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, Proudhon, etc. These doctrines, in line with the spirit of the age, began to question the foundations for everyday beliefs which organised, justified and explained society into strict hierarchical orders (such as monarchies, religions, etc). Socialists questioned the claim that these orders were given by God and that they reflected the natural order and place of different human beings. They began to question justifications that the poor were poor, or slaves were slaves, because they had certain given (inferior) natures that made them only fit for those roles. Instead, most socialisms began with the rejection of divine authority and replaced this with the idea that man's nature (whether he/she be poor, rich, slave, etc) was the result of man-made actions and force (wars, division of property, etc). These societal divisions had obscure historical roots that were often disguised as religious or national ideologies and were therefore accepted as eternal orders (e.g. the Church or the Nation). But they were in reality (according socialists) the result of man's will and need to dominate other men. Socialists wished to free humans from the domination of other humans. Socialists believed that society determined the nature/behaviour of any individual you met (not any divinely ordained good or evil nature). And that if you could create a truly free society you would create better truly free humans. This is the root of the name "socialist". These ideas were influences upon - and subsequently greatly influenced by - the French Revolution in 1789. Just over 50 years later, Marx and Engel's were dismayed by the degree to which socialists (and communists who professed similar understandings and goals) were as prone to follow whimsical and idealistic notions of mankind as were their religious counterparts. They were particularly dismayed that these idealistic visions were often completely impractical and only served to discredit more serious demands for political and social change. Changing society required drastic but realistic changes to the material division of society they felt. In writing their Communist Manifesto they sought to set down ideas that would clarify the views of the Communist Party and allow supporters of social justice and change to understand what was at stake in the issues which they fought for and debated. Over 30-40 years of writing, both Marx and Engels would lay down a body of work that would become the touch-stone for all those who worked under the name Marxist. They put forward immensely complex and revolutionary understandings of History, Economics, Phillosophy - all under the name of a new all-embracing philosophy of Historical Materialism (although this name itself is really a later invention). In essence Marx wished to make his work into a new science for the investigation of society and historical change. At root Marxists claim that all history is the struggle for those material resources (property, food, water, technology) that allowed societies to reproduce themselves. This struggle takes place between classes. This extraordinarily simple idea underlay every complex organization of society that you can find. All words in the service of myths or religions or governments or democracy, are really just justifications for different hierarchies that serve the interests of some particular group. Those who suffer from these divisions (such as slaves or workers) have been trained and persuaded to accept these words from the moment they were born (Marx called them ideologies). This is where it gets even more complex. For Marx did not claim that his doctrine aimed at revealing a reality or truth that was universal and for all time. It would require a God that truly existed to make any truth universal and ahistorical. Instead he claimed that all truths with regard to human philosophy, society and history, were normally representative of the interests of certain societal groups at certain historical moments. His work sought to show the working classes how their interests had been silenced and hidden by those who forced them to labour for things that they did not benefit from. In earlier societies these oppressors were Kings or Druids or Popes or military dictators. These figures/groups dominated the production of weapons or books and forced the masses into work (sometimes justifying this order with religious beliefs). But in the era of industrialization and the bourgeois capitalist, things were much more complex (though not fundamentally different). In capitalist society, workers worked harder than ever before and the benefits of whatever they produced were taken away by the owner of their factory (the capitalist). The capitalist was backed by the military and legal power of the state which granted him rights of property and ownership. These divisions within society were then justified/explained by numerous ideologies that were paid for and produced by bourgeois academics, universities and disciplines (such as economics). Marx claimed that capitalist societies agonies and torments would only get worse. The uneven distribution of the products of society (and the irrational nature of that production itself) only allowed greater inequality and suffering. This in the end made some kind of revolutionary change inevitable no matter how stable capitalism might seem at a given time. The end result of this change was not inevitable, however. That would be the responsibility of those involved in revolutionary epochs. For the Marxists the goal would be communism. In order for mankind to be truly free, then each individual needed to be freed from having to constantly fight and chase after the basic necessities of life (food, housing, etc). Only then would he/she be free to pursue their own true wants and become their own person. This could only happen once workers had wrested control of production from the minority capitalist owners (who used ideology to justify their ownership). Only then could workers turn the aims of production towards the needs of society as a whole. In communist societies work was supposed to become secondary to living. However, as money and production were for millenia the very basis of all societies beliefs and values, this would be immensely difficult to achieve. Capitalists who controlled the state, ideology and the military would not simply "give-up" their rights to ownership and control. They would have to be overturned by force. This would only happen if the working classes began to organise themselves in the face of intimidation and harassment. Marx intended his doctrine to help in the task of this organisation. The day would then finally come when, sparked by increasing hunger, oppression and increasing understanding of their role in society, the workers would rise up and through an international revolution overthrow the capitalist organization of society. Once this happened, history as we have known it would come to an end. And in the new egalitarian society, a new even more complex "history" would begin, as each individual member would seek to contribute to societies new goal of providing for mankind and exploring what it means to live as a free human. Marxists are those who work in this theoretical and revolutionary tradition first mapped out by Marx and Engels. This can mean many things. But normally it means a commitment to work towards an egalitarian society by applying the historical materialist conception of enquiry and drawing upon the insights explored by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Lukacs, Gramsci, Benjamin, Mao, Sartre, Guevara, C.L.R. James, and a whole string of other communist-marxist thinkers and revolutionaries. It is a tradition/practice of enquiry that continues right up to this day. One of the most important aspects of being a marxist would be that theoretical understanding can not be pursued as a goal in itself. This would be ideological. Rather all truths, action and theory must be practically related to society and be dedicated towards the goal of changing the oppresive class conditions of everyday life. Whether this change should be a step towards a more egalitarian society, or a step towards the Revolution that will finally bring about that egalitarian society, is a matter of contention even among Marxists. For criticisms of this Marxist tradition (and there is a lot) see Friedrich Von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Raymond Aron, Isaiah Berlin, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe amongst others.

Certain reform movements led women to become leaders of various reform movements. An example is that women believed their lives will improve with women's suffrage that is why they led this reform.

look at china how fast it is moving ahead and compare that to India so many glitches like failure to terrorism corruption poverty foreign policy . INDIA badly needs a strong leadership the politics has done more damage to India's integrity than anything else it must be finished and replaced with the same one-party system in china .i am not supporting power in the hands of single person but a group of most prolific selfless persons who have the will and vigour to take this country to a position of a global leader

here is where the problem arises,India has some selfless and dedicated leaders but not all.even giving the power to group of people will not solve the problem. India has the second largest population in the world,how can you expect some bunch of people sitting in their air conditioned rooms will ever be able to understand the problems of the poor?

in a democratic country all people above 18 can vote but only about 60% of the population are educated and aware about the political systems so this does create an issue in elections but as more awareness is being spread we will surely overcome that barrier.plus in dictatorship u have no right of freemdom of expression.basically, India is growing and gradually it will reach the top.

On Contrary, India is one of the greatest democracies in the world and the word 'dictator' is losing its ground day by day. The elections in Pakistan have brought a set back for Musharraf, the dictator president. Another era of dictatorship of Fidel Castro comes to an end after his stepping down. Dictator Saddam Hussein is no longer to rule. So, what's the message we get here?

The growth and stability of a nation is closely related to its foreign policy, and management of internal problems like poverty, employment, economic development. The global economy is flexible today because of best foreign policies of countries across the world. In a pragmatic view, India is good at maintaining its foreign policy with the US, China and Russia. This foreign policy would no longer remain best if the nation is headed by a dictator.

Dictatorship in India might cause unrest and conflict and that will lead to destruction, as evident from world history. The dictators like - Vladimir Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler and others caused destruction and unrest.

From Indian perspective, the dictatorship could be a curse for its developing path. However, the national epidemics like - political corruption, underdevelopment, poverty, clash over domicile etc will stay remain even in a dictator's regime.

India is a vast country and known for unity in diversity, and one dictator would not be able address the problems that arise in different parts of the country. The bottom line is that dictatorship is not always a negative aspect for the nations but, it can't be termed as a positive step in the era of globalization.

The Fascist Party sought to create a strong central government that ruled by using "corporatism". Corporatism was the idea of the government taking over the economy and breaking it down into different segments that would be controlled by both the government and big businesses. So essentially, it created a government that sought to rule by mixing big government with big business.

Fascists also pushed a strong ultranationalism and militarism, believing that powerful countries with strong militaries should do whatever they want, because they can. When the Fascists ruled Italy in the 1920's-1940's, Italy attacked other countries, like Albania, Greece and Ethiopia, in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire.

No. A belly pan on most Jeeps refers to the pan that is essentially the transmission crossmember, that is to say it is the assembly that the transmission sits on via the transmission mount that holds the transmission up into the vehicle, and also kind of doubles as a rock guard or "skid plate". The oil pan is the bottom half of the engine or transmission that holds the oil for the engine or transmission.

The 6 goals and how they are met by capitalism (compared to socialism and communism) are: Freedom--freedom in the market place. The government does not control prices or who can sell or buy. There are no barriers to entry into the market set up by the government. Of the three major systems, capitalism is usually best in this category. Growth--capitalism has the highest incentives of economic systems, because how hard you work is directly tied to how much you make. Therefore people work hard and production growth is high. Of the three major systems, capitalism is usually best in this category. Equality--This is where Capitalism is weak. In pure capitalism no one is protecting the economic rights of the poor. Opportunities in the market place are only available to those who can afford them. Stability--Prices are decided by the the balance between supply and demand. Therefore, there is little price stability compared with other economic systems because prices quickly change with every fad and shortage of resources. Capitalism is weak in this area. Security--Unemployment is usually higher in capitalism because jobs are not provided by the government (as in communism) and the government doesn't provide public services and money to help people find a job (as in socialism). Efficiency--just as in growth, capitalism has the highest incentives of economic systems, so people work hard. Businesses want to increase production in order to increase profit and therefore focus on efficiency. Also, by having the consumers and producers free to decide what to supply and consume, production must constantly change to match demand. Capitalism allows producers to easily change production levels and prices, causing more efficiency. Of the three major systems, capitalism is usually best in this category. In conclusion Capitalism is best at freedom, efficiency, and growth but is worst in stability, security, and equality.

Australia was originally set up by a democratic country, Britain. Through a series of incidents, the people in colonial Australia eventually demanded the same political rights as those that the British themselves had. This led to a legal system that was similar to that in Britain and a system of governmental regulation that was also built along the lines of the British system. As Australia became more independent from Britain it also took with it the responsibility's of self determination.

A crucial element in the development of democracy in Australia was the Eureka Stockade, led by Peter Lalor, an Irish immigrant who joined the gold rush, working the goldfields in Ballarat. Due to the deplorable conditions on the goldfields, and the lack of miners' rights and representation in government, Lalor was unofficially "elected" on 30 November 1854 to be a more militant leader and voice for the diggers. Lalor led the rebellion that later became known as the Eureka Stockade, in which the diggers stood against the ridiculous and unfair mining licence fees and licence checks. After this event, Lalor won political representation for miners on the goldfields, which led to far better conditions in the Gold towns. Lalor provided the catalyst that led to the development of Australian democracy.