Category: Liberalism

A college education that teaches general information and fosters intellectual development is often referred to as a liberal arts education in the twenty-first century. A degree in the liberal arts can equip a student for various careers in todays economy. As Jamila Lyiscott said in the video, getting a top-notch education is crucial. Lyiscott says high education means speaking well while interacting with others. While having a top-notch education enables people to choose their short- and long-term life objectives, Everyone, not just college students, should create short- and long-term goals for their lives.

The specific academic program in Western higher education is called a liberal arts education (from the Latin broad interpretation of free and art or principled practice). The term art is used in liberal arts to refer to acquired talent rather than only the fine arts. Studies for a liberal arts degree course or a university education, in general, can both be referred to as liberal arts education. Such a program of study contrasts those primarily professional, technical, or vocational.

Pursuing degrees in the social sciences or liberal arts, such as history and literature, is typically considered less prestigious than degrees in science, technology, or engineering, particularly in Asia. Students majoring in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) have greater employment chances and start with higher salaries than those majoring in the arts. However, the long-term success of liberal arts graduates is not immediately apparent, according to Researcher Leonard K. Cheng, president of Hong Kongs Lingnan University, the citys only public liberal arts university. It is because they have overall knowledge and soft skills better suited to later stages of their careers, as he explains in the most recent talk interview with South China Morning Post teaching experts.

Spelman College offers the greatest liberal arts education since it is the top historically black college and institution (HBCU). Spelman College cannot compete with HBCUs or Predominantly White Institutions (PWI). Spelman College offers an excellent education, particularly in educating students about their history regardless of whether they want to know it. To even graduate, there are obligations like travel and community work because they are truly studying in, and it is incredible.

Ten years ago, she intended to attend a prestigious institution and study law. She considered attending predominantly white institutions. Still, she instantly changed her mind after viewing the television program A Different World, which was modeled after Spelman and Morehouse College. Because she had only visited all-black schools throughout middle and elementary school, she did not want to think about enrolling in one. But once in an intoxicated school, most of the students were White, and while learning to understand their past, they believed that white instructors could not instruct on the history of the culture.

Students should advance in the field they want to work in by enrolling at the esteemed Spelman College. They should also have short-term professional objectives to expand their political science knowledge, and Spelman College will enable them to achieve so. Regarding long-term objectives, Spelman College should provide learners with the knowledge, self-assurance, and background needed to advance even further in their professional objectives. Even though Spelman College does not offer a curriculum from before as a major, it will allow them to take a more practical approach to their studies. It will assist them to be equipped Spelman College to play a significant role in the legal sector.

Spelman College will enable her to realize her present goals and work towards her future goals as well as the ones she will set. Over time, my goals will continue to expand and improve. Spelman College will primarily assist me in achieving my goals by providing me with a top-notch education, fantastic lecturers, and a wealth of resources. The greatest location for her to further her education in college. Before the event, she researched Spelman College and found a lot of programs. Which are provided here. For example, she discovered the group, and it matches her needs

Not to add, she must maintain a Deans List status for the whole of her four years of college to achieve my short-term objectives. To have alternatives for where to begin my career after law school, she plans to intern for a few excellent legal firms throughout my undergraduate studies. In the long term, she wants to start her legal firm.

Reference

Hwang, Z. (2022). A study of understanding and application of metaverse in 21st Century liberal art Education. The Journal of Liberal Arts, 9(1), 155170. Web.

Liberal vs Conservative: Introduction

The American society is traditionally divided into people who support either liberal or conservative course, although the major part still supports the mixture of values (Samara 354). This division started as early as the 18^th century. After gaining independence from Great Britain, the country was left in economic ruin. Some politicians believed that power should become more centralized to tackle the crisis. However, another political group opposed this idea as it reminded them of the former rule of the British monarchy. At that time, the debate was known as federalist vs. non-federalist. Nowadays, the issue of power still remains, as it is one of the most discussed topics among the liberals and the conservatives. Liberal and conservative representatives have different approaches towards political, economic, and social issues, which have both advantages and disadvantages for different groups of Americans.

Liberalism

Supporters of liberalism believe that the government must consolidate most of the power and be responsible for social well-being. They promote the increase of taxes because they believe that the government should spend more money on social programs like health care and education. Moreover, liberals propose to make taxes higher for the wealthier part of society. They tend to value education and commonly have more people with PhDs (Woessner and Kelly-Woessner 36). The liberal approach towards social politics includes the promotion of tolerance through accepting gay marriage and abortions.

Conservatism

Conservatives, on the contrary, believe that governmental interference will harm the countrys economy. They find the private sector to be providing better services than the government does. The Conservative course does not support high taxes and argues the necessity of the major budget spending. While a conservative approach promotes to solve problems individually, studies show that people still tend to address it instead of relying on the government when the financial inequality increases (Luttig 820). The social ideas oppose gay marriage and abortion rights but support gun ownership.

Liberal vs Conservative Ideology: Advantages

Conservatism can benefit the country by strengthening the economic situation, while liberal ideas can help to develop a tolerant society. The decentralization of financial flows can provide the growth of local budgets that could be spent according to the communities demands. Moreover, the ease of the governments pressure will support the development of start-ups. Liberal values might ensure every member of the society has the same social opportunities as others.

Liberal vs Conservative Ideology: Disadvantages

The unwillingness of conservatives to pay high taxes may have an adverse effect on disadvantaged communities, and the liberal social course may cause the opposition of values in the society. Citizens with low income, for example, will not receive quality health care services. Liberal attitudes towards marriage will face the discontent of religious people.

Liberal vs Conservative: Conclusion

Both liberal and conservative approach offers solutions which can be beneficial or not for American society depending on the group addressed. The supporters of these two courses appear to be strongly intolerant towards each other (Crawford and Polanski 849). It is interesting to address these issues from the perspective of the American societys development. A long time ago people from various countries traveled to this new world in search for the independence from their governments. However, the history has shown that the lack of governmental control may lead to the violation of the fundamental human rights. The democratic values were the primary concern during the Civil War. Nowadays, as the globalization trend has hit the world, Americans find it essential to strengthen their positions and promote once again the freedom, which has always been the fundamental value of the country.

Works Cited

Crawford, Jarret T., and Jane M. Pilanski. Political Intolerance, Right and Left. Political Psychology, vol. 35, no. 6, 2014, pp. 841-851.

Klar, Samara. A Multidimensional Study of Ideological Preferences and Priorities among the American Public. Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 78, no. s1, 2014, pp. 344-359.

Luttig, Matthew. The Structure of Inequality and Americans Attitudes Towards Redistribution. Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 77, no. 3, 2013, pp. 811-821.

Woessner, Matthew, and April Kelly-Woessner. Reflections on Academic Liberalism and Conservative Criticism. Society, vol. 52, no. 1, 2015, pp. 35-41.

Realism and Liberalism

Realism is a school of political thought that sees states as independent actors in an anarchic world system. With no overarching authority, each seeks to secure and improve its well-being by amassing power through war or offsetting the power of potential threats (Mingst et al., 2019). Its strength lies in its separation of law and ethics to produce a more detailed picture of the international environment. Its principal weakness is in its pessimistic view of humans and disregard for international institutions, which may sometimes be influential.

Liberalism, on the other hand, considers international nongovernmental institutions such as the United Nations to be influential actors. It posits that individuals and states are capable of cooperating for rational purposes, which leads to the development of interdependent relationships (Mingst et al., 2019). Through increasing amounts of interdependence, the world should eventually develop a peaceful system where it is against any actors interests to attack others. The principal advantage of liberalism is in its creation of a system where peoples lives are improved and wars are averted. However, it has the problem of being largely theoretical and idealistic, with its considerations not necessarily applied in practice.

The situation in Syria serves as a demonstration of the principles of realism rather than liberalism. The two sides in the conflict, the government and the rebels, were supported by nations affiliated with Russia and NATO, respectively. Each group sought to let their faction win to institute a loyal government that would provide a regional power balance advantage. As a result, the conflict increased in scale and duration despite international organizations efforts to resolve it peacefully. Ultimately, the people of Syria suffered excessively, providing a foundation for the emergence and growth of ISIS.

The concept of balancing demonstrates how a less powerful state may fend off a stronger one. Under it, states will ally against such an emerging threat, constraining its growth. Bandwagoning, on the other hand, involves the state aligning itself with such a threat and participating in its expansion, taking a smaller share of the gains produced during its course. This action increases the stronger states power while saving it the effort of conquering the other party. Balancing may prevent the beginning of the war through discouraging offensive actions, but bandwagoning emboldens the newly formed coalition as it grows more dominant, potentially increasing the likelihood of conflicts breaking out. With that said, countries may enter an ongoing confrontation against a potential threat to balance the scales preemptively, and, therefore, both phenomena contribute to the understanding of the reasons why nations go to war.

Tickners Criticism of Morgenthaus Principles

Tickners objection to Morgenthaus Six Principles of Realism centers on the fact that it represents a masculine world where war is a constant threat. Tickner (2018) claims that the principal traits used by the realist scholar to determine the success of a state, power, and autonomy, are typically also associated with masculinity. She argues that the focus on these two items is part of the reason why realists tend to ignore or downplay cooperation between states. As a result, the view of the world as a zero-sum game has come to dominate the theory, which impedes the solution of global problems that require worldwide improvement. Through a feminist analysis, Tickner redefines the concept of security and proposes a system that is theoretically better suited to address these issues through international cooperation.

Tickner believes that the international systems conflict-prone state relies on the perception of the masculine state as the protector of the weak, notably women. Per Tickner (2018), realist scholars typically implicitly define the state as masculine, while the nation is perceived as female and in need of protection by men. As a result of these qualities, states prioritize war and conflict under the guise of protection against a real or perceived threat. However, Tickner (2018) claims that this attitude takes away the agency of the people who are being protected, mostly women, and creates an unequal gender hierarchy (p. 25). Moreover, it hinders effective cooperation, as states attempt to maximize the benefits for themselves rather than achieve maximum global growth. To overcome this issue, Tickner advocates an overhaul of the state to devalue sovereignty and other notions she sees as masculine, potentially culminating in the states disappearance as the private and public domains merge.

Anarchy, Constructivism, and Nationalism

As a system of governance, anarchy constitutes a lack of government or other systems of authority. It is viewed by political theorists from a variety of perspectives, ranging from unsustainable chaos to the perfect system that lacks the weaknesses of current methods. However, the constructivist Alexander Wendt claims that anarchy is what states make of it (Mingst et al., 2019, p. 119) about the realist notion of global anarchy. This statements meaning is that, in the absence of an overarching directing body, the situation may develop in countless different ways. Unless the members of the anarchic system agree to a particular type of organization, the situation will be chaotic and unpredictable. Constructivism aims to understand the agreement that is reached, if any, by analyzing the characteristics of the groups and states that constitute the system. Knowledge of how they will act in a given situation is vital to understanding how and why specific structures came into being or will do so in the future.

In the constructivist theory, the recent rise of economic nationalism is associated with popular sentiment regarding the results of globalization. As Mingst et al. (2019) note, it has taken place at the same time as perceived economic stagnation and increasing numbers of refugees. As a result, in part due to dedicated messaging on the topic, many people in the United States began associating the two changes with the negative change in their lives. They saw jobs as being exported to other nations by international companies, while refugees and illegal immigrants came into the country and took on many of the positions that were still available. At the same time, new powers began emerging, posing a challenge to the United States dominant position. The two principal ones, Russia and China, began taking aggressive and ambitious actions to expand their influence, generating tension with the USA and countries affiliated with it (Mingst et al., 2019). As a result, economic and political nationalism, promoting the development of domestic business operations and putting stricter controls on immigration while asserting the nations position against challengers, rose in popularity. The population of the United States used to affluence and hegemony in the worldwide arena, felt threatened by the changing circumstances and resorted to the measures the nation used before to achieve its current condition.

References

Mingst, K. A., McKibben, H. E., & Arreguín-Toft, I. M. (2019). Essentials of international relations (8^th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.

Tickner, J. A. (2018). Rethinking the state in international relations. In S. Parashar, J. A. Tickner, & J. True (Eds.), Revisiting gendered states: Feminist imaginings of the state in international relations (pp. 19-32). Oxford University Press.

Liberalism as an economic thought has a relatively new history compared to other schools. Even though the financial crisis of 2007 was what brought a new wave of attention to liberalism, it can be traced back as far as Victorian times (Davies, 2014). However, neoliberalism differs from the original liberalism in several aspects. The main distinction is that the state is expected to be a real force, imposing specific ethical rules on the market instead of just relying on it. The 2008 crisis brought some serious concerns regarding the future of neoliberalism, and Lachmann (2016) states that neoliberalism might turn out to have been just a short episode in the long history of capitalism (p. 5). One of the reasons for that is that liberalism is not seen as a democratic force in politics (Crouch et al., 2016). Therefore, several scholars believe neoliberalism is losing its position.

However, some researchers see the benefit of business to society. In their work on corporate social responsibility, the Center for ethical business cultures (2010) suggests that free-market results in economic prosperity and political freedoms. There are four main types of CSR theories: instrumental, political, integrative, and ethical (Garriga and Melè 2004). However, Garriga and Melè (2004) also argue that those four types are interlinked, and academics need to develop a new theory to connect them. According to Carroll (2003), CSRs four principal dogmas: companies must be profitable, obey the law, be ethically responsible, and be philanthropical. In the same work, the author concludes that it is beneficial for a business to comply with the law, be charitable and follow ethics (Carroll, 2003).

Some scholars are not as optimistic in their views on CSR. For example, Banerjee (2008) notices that most modern companies and businesses are more interested in their obligation to stakeholders than society. In another work, Banerjee (2014) also states that it is unrealistic to expect companies to strive towards socially significant improvements because it can often be contradictory to their financial interests. While corporate social responsibility theory tries to justify business by stating that it may be helpful to society, such a claim is not always realistic.

It is vital to discuss the influence of stakeholders on a companys policy and decision-making. As mentioned above, there is an idea that companies are more obliged to their shareholders than to the public. There are several arguments in favor of such an approach. First of all, Kaler (2006) says that stakeholders in a way own a company, and serving public interests would violate property rights. Another argument is economic efficiency, which increases if a company is only obliged to stakeholders (Kaler, 2006). However, there are objections to both of those arguments. The first one is whether or not shareholders own companies; the second one is that the second argument does not consider customer loyalty, community support, and some other factors (Kaler, 2006).

When talking about CSR, it is also essential to mention the role of CSR consultants. In their work, Brès and Gond (2014) say that consultants play three main roles: social and environmental issues translators, market boundary negotiators, and responsive regulations enactors (p. 1358). The first type of consultant observes the public and social movements to help companies form their policy (Bres & Gond, 2014). As boundary negotiators, they shift boundaries to protect a company or increase its influence (Bres and Gond, 2014). Regarding the responsive regulations enactors role, Bres and Gond (2014) say that consultants may play a central role in the enactment of regulations and shape the socio-cultural regulative environment of corporations through a variety of processes (p. 27).

Good examples of how CSR forms the image of an organization are WTO and IMF. In an essay on these two organizations, Chorev and Babb (2009) state that WTO is more likely to still play a role in the international economy than the IMF in the current neoliberal crisis. He argues that this is likely to happen thanks to the organizations equal representation strategy (Chorev & Babb, 2009). On the other hand, Ostry et al. (2016) state that IMF is the most concerned with the neoliberal agenda and where it might lead.

Another aspect important for establishing a companys reputation is its reports to investors. Corporate reporting is what allows investors to make an opinion regarding a company and decide whether they want to invest in it or not. In work on integrated reporting, Dumay et al. (2016) argue that it requires some harmonization, meaning that reporting processes should become more transparent. This is because, at present, the public is becoming more concerned about whether it is suitable for companies only to seek profit.

Finally, the last point regarding organizations and the neoliberal crisis are global problems, such as poverty, human rights, and climate change. In a paper on sustainable development, Rockström et al. (2013) suggest that the most likely scenario countries will be developing is business as usual (p. 5). It means that states will compete for limited resources while not paying much attention to planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2013). However, sometimes a states policy is limited by international business. A good example is Australia which introduced a carbon tax, which led to significant confusion in the global market (Kumar et al., 2020). This case explains why business is often somewhat hesitant to adopt new policies regarding climate.

To conclude, liberalism is an economic school with a lot of influence on the modern economy. It also provokes arguments in the international community regarding the role of the state in limited companies and the role of international organizations, such as IMF and WTO, in guiding world trade. One of the biggest concerns is how the lack of restrictions may affect global problems, especially climate change.

References

Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 5179.

Banerjee, S. B. (2014). A critical perspective on corporate social responsibility: Towards a global governance framework. Critical perspectives on international business.

Brès, L., & Gond, J. P. (2014). The visible hand of consultants in the construction of the markets for virtue: Translating issues, negotiating boundaries and enacting responsive regulations. Human Relations, 67(11), 1347-1382.

Carroll, Archie. (2003). The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship. Business and Society Review. 100. 1-7.

Center for ethical business cultures. (2010). Corporate social responsibility  The shape of a History, 1945-2004

Chorev, N., & Babb, S. (2009). The crisis of neoliberalism and the future of international institutions: A comparison of the IMF and the WTO. Theory and Society, 38(5), 459-484.

Crouch, C., Porta, D. D., & Streeck, W. (2016). Democracy in neoliberalism?. Anthropological Theory, 16(4), 497-512.

Davies, W. (2014). Neoliberalism: A bibliographic review. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(7-8), 309-317.

Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J., & Demartini, P. (2016, September). Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. In Accounting forum (Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 166-185). Elsevier.

Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51-71.

Kaler, J. (2006). Evaluating stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(3), 249-268.

Kumar, S. S., Banerjee, B., de Paiva Duarte, F., & Dadich, A. (2020). The businessgovernment nexus: Impact of government actions and legislation on business responses to climate change. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(6), 952-974.

Lachmann, R. (2016). Crisis of Neoliberalism, Crisis of the World?. University of Albany.

Ostry, J. D., Loungani, P., & Furceri, D. (2016). Neoliberalism: Oversold?-Instead of delivering growth, some neoliberal policies have increased inequality, in turn jeopardizing durable expansion. Finance & Development, 53(002).

Rockström, J., Sachs, J. D., Öhman, M. C., & Schmidt-Traub, G. (2013). Sustainable development and planetary boundaries. Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

The idea of liberalism appeared in 17th century, it was the western philosophy based on political sight of enlightenment and got prominent in the era of enlightenment only. The liberal education stemmed from the idea of liberalism which perpetuated beliefs of having equal rights, freedom, liberty and autonomy by men. The idea is strongly influenced by the notion of governing yourself with very less intervention of government and by Kant’s notion of moral autonomy. Different philosophers have their adaptation, critiques, agreements, definitions for describing liberal education. Aristotle who was a Greek philosopher saw liberal education as the blend of two aspects: one would be virtues that include rationality and another would be readiness that includes the implication of establishing appropriate habits. What Chomsky put up about liberal education and liberal ideas is that “liberalism can only result in anarchy” and as a consequence of which liberalism in the open market leads to the flourish of capitalism. According to his provided rationality, liberalism diffuses the power or authority of the state over decisions which can be risky for the individual’s liberty and which also leads to privatization as well as capitalism. The idea of neoliberalism can be the live example of free-market space where the intrusion of state can be very minimal. Let’s synthesize the philosophy of liberal education that Hirst’s idea talked about.

Aims of liberal education and schooling are not something to be precise or standardized universally, not like education for free people but the purpose of freeing an individual’s mind to function according to the intrinsic nature of himself/herself that they can give rationality to. The aim of liberal education also derives from the notion of how individuals ought to live both individually and socially. To make education a meaningful activity for developing the individual, it’s crucial in a liberal viewpoint to consider values in it. Liberal education works in the direction of acquiring the purpose of an individual’s living. According to Newman liberal education aimed at the free exercise of mind. Attaining or promoting autonomy is the prime aim of liberal education in this individuals being taught to pursue their life according to their own will/wish. The idea of knowledge here is nothing particularly to do with anyone’s knowledge i.e. vocational education, scientific education, profession-oriented education but based on holistic pursuit of knowledge. Liberal education is concerned with the idea of the pursuit of knowledge with the development of the mind through any skills, virtues or any other attributes. It doesn’t produce any knowledge to do with the market point of view. Liberal education perceives an individual (here student) as a being that can take their stands and have an opinion of his/her own in societal/personal debates of life. Eventually, the curriculum is the blueprint plan for fulfilling aims of education so derived from the same. The curriculum or content of liberal education cannot be decided rigidly but should emerge from the moral problems of life provided by different disciplines and reflection based processes through studying the power of speech as well as rationality.

There are two views of a liberal education: one in terms of quality of mind it ought to be produced and another the forms of knowledge it ought to be concerned about. In the first view, the aim to cultivate some attitudes and aptitudes: 1) to thinking effectively which includes logical thinking, analyzing problems, imaginative thinking; 2) to communicate thoughtfully which includes speaking, reading, listening, writing, the art of conversation; 3) to make appropriate judgments which include the ability of students to resist the whole range of ideas and bring into experience i.e. abstraction to facts and thoughts to action; 4) to make the distinction between values which caters the awareness of characters like self-control, fair play, aesthetics (developing good tastes). In the second view area of knowledge has been decided for the curriculum i.e. natural science, humanities, social science. The first view reflects components from the aims mentioned in earlier sections and the second view reflects upon the idea of knowledge on which curriculum is based in liberal education.

Marxist theory is one of the prominent theories in the social, economical and political world that critically deals with the class structured divisions of our society. The theory was first introduced by Karl Marx which eventually acknowledged the unequal divisions of capitals, exploitation of working classes. The argument regarding capitalism starts rising from the time when Europe hit the phase of the industrial revolution. During the period of industrialization, some major classes evolved in are middle or working class in the society and from then till now those class divisions keep on reproducing. Here, in this paper, I am going to put some light on how the philosophy of Marxist theory has an emphasis on schooling and education. Aim of education according to the Marxist theory of schooling is that Marx considers individuals as existentialists and school should be a place that allows students to understand their radical subjectivity and help the individual to overcome the weaknesses, with a sense of freedom and autonomy. There are certain ideas on which the Marxist theory of education and schooling is based on. Unlike the liberal philosophy of education, where the idea of schooling is basically about what education should be like, as the liberal theory of education has consisted of utopianism. The Marxist ideas reject the utopian socialist schemes, strictly against reinforcing the dogmatic culture and encourage the building of new ideas while criticizing the old ones. Marx’s ideology also talked about the confusion between realities and illusions we have about this world because what seems real doesn’t necessarily be actual reality. Here the theory of schooling depicts as well as depends on the theory of society. When the reproduction of the social classes takes place through socialization, competencies, structures, ideologies, etc, the same way schools also contribute to the reproduction of labor power. Now the question arises in which way school is doing the reproduction of the society’s productive forces? Teaching paradigms are part of school culture and equally contributed to the process of reproducing inequalities. According to school culture, teacher’s imagery would be the authority for working-class students which imposes supremacy over working-class lads. This works as an exchange program where knowledge is for respect and guidance is for control. Similarly, social organization in school like having a timetable or work according to the clock symbolizes the penetration of culture for future jobs, like the labor work schedule. Discipline becomes not only a matter of punishment but to maintain the institutional axis of reproducing social relationships between authorities (teachers) and the subordinates (students).

There are three dimensions to class struggles – economic, political and ideological. Ideological plays a crucial part in the field of education. Ideological State Apparatus is a term developed by the Marxist theorist philosopher Louis Althusser that include institutions like the religious, the educational, the family, the legal, the political, the trade-union, the communications, the cultural, which are formally outside the state control but they perpetuate or transmit the values of the state to interpellate those individuals affected by them and to maintain a particular social order. That social order precisely reflects the reproduction of capitalist relations of production and maintenance of class gap or inequalities. Ideological State Apparatus functions by ideology, which in capitalist society is fundamental to social control and education play a vital role in transmitting this ideology. That is why Educational IAS considered one of the dominant apparatuses, which replaced the previously dominant IAS, the church. One of the major reasons behind considering education as an important ISA is that the process of schooling started from the very early age of a child and those years of a child’s life are vulnerable. And children devote most of their time at schools in the capitalist social formation ideology which ultimately turn out to reproduce structures of inequalities. The mass children at the age of 16 pushed into production i.e. workers or small peasant, some reaches to fill the post of small technicians, white-collar jobs or bourgeois of all kinds, last are the agents of exploitation (capitalist), the agents of repression (policemen) and professional ideologist (priest). The schools teach know-how, but in forms that ensure subjection to the ruling ideology or the mastery of its practice. The prominent role of education is the reproduction of an efficient and obedient workforce which is achieved through schools. Educational institutions pass the ideology of capitalism as just and reasonable as well as train future labor to become submissive to authority. As children learn to read, write and to add or acquire a different number of techniques, scientific elements, literary culture, etc, which is useful in different jobs in production. But other than these techniques and knowledge children at school also learn good behavior, rules, way of ordering, i.e the expected attitude according to the jobs they are destined for – established by the class domination. For instance, learn to speak proper French to handle the workers correctly( for future capitalist). This type of curriculum structure leads to the reproduction of inequalities when they learn know-how. Classroom practices, teacher behaviors or some part of pedagogy comes under a hidden curriculum, which is a tool of the ruling class. Bowles argues it teaches the children to accept their position in society. For instance, the school teaches children to accept as normal to do as you are told, this way when your boss orders you than it seems perfectly normal. What is taught and what is not taught impacts the nature of value consensus that education produces.

Hegemonizing a particular culture or class in the textbooks by including texts can be related to a particular religion which again leads to the perpetuation of a dominant ideology. Michael Apple also agreed that the class culture of dominant groups was transferred through curricula and pedagogies to students. For instance, in the primary classes, NCERT the topic – types of houses depict a basic standardized or stereotypical representation of house structures, having a presumption that every student lived in a house like that but realities might have different according to the individual background. Krishna Kumar also mentioned in his writing ‘Learning to be backward’ that the learner’s background affects his/her response to an educational text. He also gave an example of a tribal boy from real-life observation of a classroom interaction while transacting the text based on socio-economic and cultural change where the teacher uses her power to place the ST boy in a situation where he acknowledges ignorance.

Educational ideologies also help in shaping school practices within the classroom. It does this through the grading and assessment policy so that the individual fights vigorously in a competitive manner to achieve what is set as standards of achievement. For instance, standardized tests/exams conducted for students with a diverse background in schools where subjectivity is missing which eventually leads to the division of labor (sort of filtration). Though functionalists see schools as a place of opportunity for social reform or mobility through individual efforts. Marxist pulled out the point that schools reproduce social inequalities as meritocracy is a myth. Only the ruling class gets benefits from the educational institutions which meet their needs by limiting the opportunities of the working classes and thereby legitimize the reproduction of inequalities. Primarily the reason for having schools for education lies in having the crucial role of gaining knowledge. But the types of knowledge are also differentiated, some types of knowledge are more worthwhile than other ones, for instance, school knowledge, and non-school knowledge. That was reflected in the formal and informal grouping in counter school or shop floor culture. There are two ideas associated with knowledge – first ‘knowledge of the powerful’ (who have control over knowledge and access to it), and second ‘powerful knowledge’ ( what all the knowledge can do). Through that class culture and class, power nepotism indulges in the education system. The school creates the myth of meritocracy that every child is equal in school from any class background and he/she can reach any level with their hard work.

In a nutshell, the teacher paradigm is the principle area that was utilized by the school as the key reproduction of the working class. This paradigm helps the teacher to gain authority and taught students obedience, conformity of working-class kids to accept the social division which recollects the banking model of Paulo Freire in the pedagogy of the oppressed. Contrastingly, as a solution, the problem-posing model suggested by Freire, in which he sees the relationship between teacher and students as dialectical. He resolves the difference between active teaching and passive learning by synthesizing into a single role, where everyone teaches and learns in the same space.

Works Cited

1. Althusser, L. (1970). Ideology and ideological state apparatus. In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, Monthly review press (pp. 1-33).
2. Hirst, P. (n.d.). liberal education and the nature of knowledge.
3. Matthews, M. R. (1980). Marxism and education. In The marxist theory of schooling (pp. 176-200). harvester press.SUSSEX, humanities press.NEW JERSEY.

The comparison between Realism and Liberalism

Introduction

When considering realism and liberalism in terms of international relations both these theories can be regarded as useful. However, these two theories can be used as tools for exploring and explaining what are the subjects. According to Bayliss and Smith (2005:186) Realism as a theory is the “natural party of government and Liberalism (as) the leader of the opposition”. The purpose of this essay is to distinguish between realism and liberalism and apply these theories to South Africa. This paper is structured as follows: it consists of two parts whereby part 1 differentiates and part 2 applies.

Part 1

Realism

Realism’s natural home is mostly focused on tensions and conflicts in terms of international relations. Realism is a mechanism used to understand how/is the conflict-led with the ordering of the world. The most recent is the Trade War between USA and China because China developing a 5G network over the USA. Martin (p.3) states that Realism has three types:

“Classical Realism focuses on the inmate desire for humans to dominate one another and extrapolates this view to states. Neorealism suggests that all states are seeking to survive within an international system, but as the system is anarchic in nature each state must survive on its own. The latest addition to Realism is the Offence-Defence Theory, which suggests that war was more likely when states could conquer each other easily”. However, this means a state will attack another state when it has a belief that it could win.

Realism can also be measured in terms of its machinery in the military and as well as its successful conflicts. Therefore, state military and state dominance are the key focus of Realism. In state, these two are regarded as life objectives. Realism is all about states seeking power so they can be powerful. In terms of Realism, when there is no higher government above states, states rely on themselves for protection and to sustain their independence, therefore, their only option is the use of power. Therefore, this nation-on-nation conflict will strengthen Realism and weakens what is Liberalism in states. In Realism where there are states, conflict is bounded to happen.

Liberalism

Liberalism focuses on peace and compromise between states, it also elaborates on the side-by-side international system that it is whether ordered or stable – liberalism is driven by peaceful coexistence among states. However, this is not what realists are against, but mechanisms and institutions are what liberalists see as a solution rather than conflict. Martin (p.5) states that “Liberalism espouses an international system constituted of institutions which combine multiple states, where Realism only sees anarchy in and conflict inevitable between states”. The interdependence of the economy will minimize conflict which will bring about damage to both. Therefore, when states are satisfied economically this will mean less level of motivation into risking their prosperity.

According to Martin (p.6) “starting a conflict in an economically interdependent system would be equivalent of ‘biting the hand that feeds you since you would be destroying a combination of the supply and the demand of the economies involved”. Liberalism does not mean freedom or peace per se, but it is unlikely to experience conflict. By this good states will not go into conflict with each other but good states (democratic) will into conflict with bad states (dictatorship or authoritarian). For example, the US government killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in 2020. International institutions such as the UN, AU, and NATO make it difficult for their member states to start a conflict/war. Martin (p.7) states that “without the liberalist view that the anarchy can be solved through institutions, globalization would not have been possible”.

The comparison between Realism and Liberalism

An optimistic future and progressiveness are the representatives of Liberalism. International organizations like International Monetary Fund or United Nations exist because of liberal thought. Realism has become too expensive for states to take part in. Realists believe that the state-on-state wars have been suspended temporarily because of international mechanisms and institutions. And that probably trade negotiations have become more non-aggressive wars. For example, the trade war between Washington and Beijing. Liberalism sees the failure of other states as a threat rather than their success. The importance and the use of power are not fully considered by Realism and Liberalism. However, in this sense Liberalism uses soft power (that is according to Nye (2011:20) “the ability to affect others through the co-optive means of framing agenda persuading, and eliciting positive attraction in order to obtain preferred outcomes”) and Realism uses hard power (that is according to Nye (2011:27) “states are caught in a zero-sum game where it is rational to fend for themselves because they cannot trust others”). Realism is designed in that a claim that sees the world as is. Liberalism sees the world as one gigantic market-free universe. While realists see the world as taking short-term advantage due to the endless struggle.

Liberalism takes to mind that free trade is the immune system of the world. Liberalism believes that where there is prejudice there is a high risk of war on states. Realism believes that lack of understanding does not cause war but the clashing of state interests does. Furthermore, if the aim is avoiding war, then the best method is complete isolation of the nation. Roggeveen (2001:31) states that “Realism is ultimately too pessimistic and maybe even too relativist for the liberal disposition”. Realism is not just taken as a subject of understanding the universe but it is also used to guide policies. Prescription, explanation, or guide for policy are actors in Realism. For example, after World War II states like the USA, China and Russia acted as realist states in terms of international relations. Liberalism has accepted the anarchic international system. Therefore, the anarchic structure of international relations can be weakened by interdependence. To liberalists, international institutions matter rather than realists. Liberalism believes that anarchy was dampened by cooperation arenas like SADC, AU, EU, or World Trade Centre and solving problems together rather than as individual states. Also, power managing and responding to what is treated by contributing to tackling resources.

Part 2

Liberalism

South Africa as a liberal state under the administration of Mandela (1994-1999) saw itself as a human rights defender and as well as defending democracy throughout Africa and the World at large. Mandela’s foreign policy was favored by charisma on the platform of international relations. For example, Mandela took the role of a mediator (1997) in a Northern Ireland conflict. During the administration of Mbeki (1999-2008) South Africa’s foreign policy towards African countries was mostly based on the initiative of governance. Mbeki fought for African development, which was seen by the universe as a ‘global governance architecture’. For example, Mbeki was an architect in Africa’s framework of development which is known as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in 2001. The administration of Zuma (2009-2018) in terms of international relations it preferred the cooperation of south-south African states, which also favored the importance of the diplomacy of the economy. For example, South Africa obtained membership in BRICS in 2010.

South Africa as a Liberalism state uses soft power in the international system. It prefers to balance the relationship between its international and domestic actors. South Africa in international relations supports non-aligned autonomy of strategic policy and independence. However, in this context, South Africa strengthens its priorities of domestic and foreign linkages.. Creates a bond between state and non-state actors so to strengthen its international relations. For example, investing in African states and creating cooperation. South Africa as a liberal state in promotes interdependence as it is a member state of the United Nations, African Union, SADC, and BRICS. For example, because of interdependence, Germany donated two million Rands in March 2020 to South Africa to buy testing kits for COVID-19.

South Africa as a Liberalism state promotes peace and freedom. For example, assisting with military personnel in the Central African Republic conflict. Another example is when Nigerian citizens attacked the South African embassy in 2019, instead of South Africa responding with force it decided to radical and avoid conflict between these two states. Even though South Africa is driven by keeping peace and maintaining freedom, there are instances where it uses relative power to pursue its national interest. For example, the DRC peacekeeping (1997-2005) was an intervention that was to build the image of South Africa. South Africa is for state multilateralism and sovereignty and believes that state intervention should be done under the watchful eye of the United Nations or regional blocs such as the African Union (UN) or Southern African Development Community (SADC).

South Africa stiffly promotes diplomacy as the mechanism for disputes and non-violence rather than states using armed force or imposing sanctions. For example, the use of diplomacy for swift transition in Sudan. South Africa continues to have strong measures/relations with countries that are in violation of their international commitment including economic weight and as well as military.

South Africa enforces cooperation in Africa to eliminate or minimize what is intervention from non-African states. For example, it excluded it from AFRICOM, which is a continental affairs interference that is designed from the Americas. Even though, at times it puts interests first by having relations with developed states, for example, taking part in the US African Growth and Opportunity Act and also taking part in the Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. However, with these, it is criticized by one of its regional blocs SADC for having compression size against manufacturers from Zimbabwe. South Africa maximized its interdependence after the apartheid government and became of the top investor and traders in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Realism

South Africa as a Realism state tends to dominate Southern Africa or it tends to use its power over Southern Africa or other African countries. It tends to invest in other African countries but those same rarely invest in South Africa as it has the power to dominate. For example, Shoprite is spreading across Africa as a South African institution. This Realism power that is used by South Africa towards other African countries is what Nye calls hard power. For example, other African countries do not have much impact in terms of investing in South Africa like Botswana. Looking at the coup of Lesotho (1998), South Africa intervened because of economic national interest where they had to protect the Katse dam which supplies electricity to South Africa. South Africa did the very same by intervening in Zimbabwe in 2008 even though there is a mass influx of Zimbabweans. Furthermore, even with its intervention in DRC (1997-2005) which was seen as a balance of power under the guise of peacekeeping, however, all these were Realism acts from South Africa. However, with the intervention of Lesotho AU did not act toward South Africa as it was one of the strongest economies in Africa. Even though, South Africa used relative power against Lesotho. This is what Liberalism is against, using power/force against another state to protect its interests. On the other hand, Realism agrees that a state can use whatever force/power to protect its own interests.

South Africa’s intervention in DRC was more of proving a point to the international community because it was just after apartheid when it was denied international participation. This behavior by South Africa is seen as a national gain. Waltz states that “in the anarchy of international politics, the relative gain is more important than absolute gain” (Waltz, 1959:198). South Africa with so much power tends to dominate SADC which is a regional bloc, where it also protects its interests. South Africa keeps increasing its Africa’s dominance of the economy. Therefore, South Africa used structural power to dominate other African countries or developing economies. Structural power is defined by Strange as the power “to decide how things shall be done, the power to shaper frameworks within which states relate to each other, relate to people, or relate to corporate enterprises” (Strange, 1988:25). This is because of the quest of continental leadership. However, most leaders use South Africa for their own personal interests and gains. For example, Cyril Ramophosa is the Chairperson of the African Union. Realism under Mbeki’s administration (1999-2007) wanted to showcase South Africa’s power in the continent. By exploiting its standing, because of the democratic regime (transition). This means that South Africa’s international relations are set according to the interests of the nation rather than regional or global Interests.

Conclusion

To conclude, Realism believes that states can use force or power over another state to sustain their interests, and that conflict is the only way. Liberalism is all about promoting peace and interdependence, and another state’s failure is a threat rather than a success. South Africa as a liberal state promotes peace, and freedom and believes in multilateralism. However, as a Realism state, it uses other African countries for its own interests.

Reference list

1. Amoa, O.B. 2019. The foreign policy and intervention behavior of Nigeria and South Africa in Africa: a structural realist analysis. South African journal international affairs, 26(1):93-112.
2. Dunne, T. 2005. Liberalism in the globalization of world politics. J, Baylis & S, Smith ed. Oxford: OUP.
3. Martin, R. Anon. Does liberalism provide a viable alternative to realism as a theory of international relations? https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downlosd?doi=10.1.1.462.4096&rep=rep1&type=pdf Date of access: 16 Mar.2020.
4. Muller, N.B. 2012. Nuanced balancing act: South Africa’s national and international interests and its African agenda. Occasional paper, 120.
5. Nye, J. 2011. The future of power. New York: Public Affairs.
6. Pustovitovskij, A. & Kremer, J.F. 2011. Structural power and international relations analysis: fill your basket, get your preferences. Institute of development research and development policy, 191.
7. Roggeveen, S. 2001. Towards a liberal theory of international relations. The Centre for Independent Studies, February 2001.
8. SAGE edge. Powerful ideas: Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism. https://.www.edge.sagepub.com/scott3e Date of access: 16 Mar.2020.
9. Strange, S. 1988. States and markets: An introduction to international political economy. London: Pinter publishers.
10. Van Staden, M. 2019. The liberal tradition in South Africa, 1910-2019. Econ journal, 16(2):258-341.
11. Vale, P., Swatuk, L.A. & Oden, B. ed. 2001. Theory, Change, and Southern Africa’s future. New York: Palgrave.
12. Waltz, K.N. 1959. Man, the state, and the international system. New York City: Columbia University Press.

Research Paper

In this essay, I am going to discuss different theories of government such as liberalism and communism. I am going to go into depth on how these theories operate as well as discuss how these theories affect societies. I will also go into depth on how these theories operate and also provide critique on what is wrong with them. I am often going to use examples of past or present governments that practice these theories and how it has affected them. The main objective of this research paper is to prove why I believe liberalism theory provides a more prospering society than the communism theory.

First, I will go into depth on liberalism and discuss how the ideology behind it. The theory of liberalism is based on the “call for freedom of speech and thought” (Gaus, 2003). Liberalism puts an emphasis on freedom and each individual having an even playing field. In the article, “Principles of a Liberal Social Order,” F.A. Hayek discusses how liberalism is the idea of limited government and enforcing laws that are necessary for society. The idea behind this is that it allows individuals to perform at a higher level than any other form of government or theory. In the article, Hayek is discussing spontaneous order and says, “A spontaneous order is based on rules which leave the individuals free to use their knowledge for their own purposes, and an organization or arrangement based on commands is of central importance to understanding the principles of a free society” (Hayek, 603). According to Hayek, liberalism provides individuals with the best opportunity to use their own knowledge to excel. The idea of liberalism focuses on a free market economy to give individual people the highest chance of thriving based on their own knowledge and determination.

According to John Mill, “As it is useful that while mankind is imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically when anyone thinks fit to try them” (Gaus, 2003). Mills is essentially stating how everyone is different and each individual should have their own opinions for what they believe. However, people have the freedom to do whatever they choose, and some people will excel, and some people will fail. According to John Rawls, liberalism provides each individual with an opportunity to excel. This disregards how people were born physically, mentally, and economically. For example, a person who was born into wealth and a person born into poverty have an equal playing field to succeed. Rawls uses a principle called “Justice as Fairness” in which he says each individual has a right to basic liberties no matter the situation (Gaus, 2003).

The theory of liberalism has been integrated into a number of countries. For example, the United States has used the liberal theory in policies and beliefs over time. The United States has similarities to liberalism in the criteria of the economy, laws, and equality. Although not perfect, the United States tries to implement an economic market where people can thrive using their knowledge and abilities. The United States also employs laws of basic liberties that every individual should have. They also try to implement an equal opportunity where everyone has a chance to thrive, but it is not a perfect system. Germany has also applied theories of liberalism to their government. In the 19th century, Germany recognized and implemented policies that were similar to the United States. In a book named “German Expansionism, Imperial Liberalism and the United States,” by Jens-Uwe Guettel states “Of all the German colonies, only Southwest Africa had a sizable settler population. By 1903, slightly less than 5,000 Europeans lived in the colony, but the number tripled within a decade. As a result, the settlement of the American West was viewed as especially relevant for GSWA. Moreover, German observers attributed the success of America’s westward expansion to laissez-faire principles and the United States’ liberal political system. These reflections made American colonization practices especially attractive for liberal German expansionists” (Guettel, 2013). As a result, many places tried to implement the same principles that the United States had intact. The free market theory is the theory that was used a lot in governments. The United States as well as other countries implemented the Laissez-Faire Principle. The Laissez-Faire principle aims to have a free market, hands-off economy. This principle correlates with liberalism because both visions are to let the economy thrive without a lot of interference and regulation.

On the other hand, liberalism has some critiques as well. Critiques have stated that the liberal political theory often represents the liberal social practice that correlates with the Marxist ideology (Walzer, 1990). Critiques look at this theory as people who are isolated. People that are shielded and divided by rights. They believe liberalism divides people and leaves them isolated in a society whit no form of community presence. In this argument, critiques look at this theory as if it has no history. People do not share traditions because they only represent themselves (Walzer, 1990). Essentially, critics believe that since the theory of liberalism focuses on freedom that in result it leaves a gap in history. They believe this because the freedom of each individual is separate therefore there are no traditions shared between one another. For example, the critiques believe that certain values, religions, etc. are not shared in a liberal society. Whereas, in the communist theory, all the citizens have the same values and beliefs.

According to Karl Marx, the theory of liberalism is not rational because it is difficult to diminish the evil in society. He believes the only rational thought is to abolish society itself (Buchanan, 1982). Marx believes that the liberal theory opens the door up to a society where evil is abundant. The idea is based on in a liberal society people become greedy, exploit, and manipulate people and or things. As a result, Marx believes the only way to abolish evil is to abolish society itself. He also believes that “Only communism enables the full satisfaction of undistorted desires, and satisfaction is maximized only in a society whose members have such desires” (Buchanan, 1982). From a feminist and communist point of view, they believe the liberalism theory “Denies the embeddedness in the social world that is definitive of human life” (Hekman, 1992). This means that the theory of liberalism puts a division between men and women. Hekman states, “Due to the differing psychoanalytic development of boys and girls, boys are encouraged to develop masculine traits while girls are actively discouraged” (Hekman, 1992). Critiques believe the liberalism theory encourages one gender while discouraging another. As a result, this belief means that men are developed to have individuality while women are not therefore are not ready to live a separate life. Feminists and Communists believe that the theory of liberalism only prepares men for a life of freedom and individuality. Leaving the women to be unprepared and left isolated. Communist theorists also believe the equality of opportunity is not as even as it is in the communism theory. Communism’s idea of equality is giving everyone the same things and everyone being equal. Whereas, from a liberal point of view equality is providing everyone with an even playing field of opportunity to succeed in their economy.

An argument against liberalism also states that Rawl’s concept of justice has major flaws. This is because his concept requires an essential concept to the community which his concept does not contain therefore Rawl’s concept is irrelevant (Hekman, 1992).

Next, we will discuss the theory of communism only. Although there are communist leaders, communism itself has never been practiced. In this section, we will go into further depth on the communism theory and what it is. A book called “Communism and Political Culture Theory” by Gabriel Almond discusses how the theory of the communist system focuses on the experiment of attitude change. Almond talks about how communities are constantly watched, schools have rigorous teachings of the communist ideology, and in general, there are a set of rules and beliefs for the system (Almond, 1983). If any of these rules are disobeyed, there is severe punishment for those actions. Communism focuses on having the proletariat take over the classes in which they lead. The communism theory focuses on abolishing private property and having a profitable economy with the means of production.

To go more in-depth on the communism theory, we will discuss Vladimir Lenin. Lenin was a communist advocate and had a theory known as “Leninism.” According to “Leninism” by Neil Harding, “Leninism constituted the most comprehensive alternative to global capitalism and every variant of bourgeois society” (Harding, 1996). According to Lenin, the theory was a “society that forfeited its right to exist” (Harding, 1996). Lenin wanted to implement a whole new set of beliefs and values because everything else was “aged.” His philosophy was to take private property from capitalists for nothing in return (Fineberg). Lenin also implemented a policy called the “Tax In Kind” policy which took food and gave it directly to the state for redistribution to the people (Fineberg). Lenin proceeded to implement these actions too quickly which resulted in it to have repercussions. One of the ideas of that Lenin and the communism theory wanted was to help the proletariat class thrive. They believed the communism theory was the most rational way because the free market would not help the lower class excel. Marx and Lenin put an emphasis on building a party to overthrow the bourgeoisie and then nominating a dictator to take another step toward communism (Harding, 1996).

However, there are many critiques of the communism theory. One of the arguments that come with communism is the establishment of practicing communism. This is important because this theory has never been actually implemented. In an article by Gabriel Almond, he states, “The attitudes that communist movements encounter in countries where they take power are viewed as false consciousness. These attitudes are viewed as the consequences of preexisting class structure and the underlying mode of production. Communist movements either eliminate or seek to undermine the legitimacy of these preexisting structures and replace them with a new set of rules” (Almond, 1983). Almond goes on to discuss how the transformation to communism would take a long time if ever to implement. Burnham states, “According to Communists, the real problem is qualitative change – the change from water, the solid, into ice or gas. It is the change from a capitalist to a communist society. The revolution – that moment in the social process when the historical temperature reaches 212 degrees is the real meaning of the historical process, the real key, the real crux, and it is toward this that their attention is always invariably directed” (Burnham, 1952). Burnham continues by saying how communists do not want steady changes, they want to transition rapidly. This quote shows the argument of the transition might be the most key element of them all. If communists do not have the patience to make the slow changes to become what they envision then how will it ever work? Everyday citizen does not want their governmental system to be turned upside down in a day.

Critiques also argue that the communism economic theory is not effective. Instead of supply and demand setting prices, the government does, this can result in economic downfall and no competition. This economic system can also result in an underground market where individuals will trade for what they want because they feel as if they cannot obtain items through their government. The communist theory is also argued to lead to other downfalls. For example, crime and poverty are at the top of the list. Communism can lead to crime because when people feel as if they are trapped, they turn to survival mode. People will do anything to survive and if their governmental system is not working, they find other ways. Poverty is also correlated with communism. If the economy owned by the government runs out of goods, money, etc. then what will the people do? They could possibly starve as well as other things. Communism relating to these key elements is another setback for the theory of communism.

Lastly, I will discuss how liberalism is the best overall theory in comparison to the communism theory. The idea of the liberalism theory is based on freedom and equal opportunity. A liberal theory focuses on providing its individuals with the free market economy to provide the highest possible achievement of individuals through their own knowledge. According to F.A. Hayek, this allows competition to be the highest possible. The liberal theory aims to provide individuals with the freedom to do whatever they wish to do. I believe the liberalism theory is the most effective because it provides an overall theory that helps people excel at what they choose to do. It also provides an economy full of competition and profit which is one of the most important things to society. In a prospering society, it is significant that individuals be able to pursue and differ from things. A society that lets people flourish without restrictions is a thriving society. People do not like to be told what to do, it is human nature. The liberalism theory allows people to both agree and disagree with one another without repercussions. At the end of the day, I disagree with communist theorists on the idea that liberalism theory causes isolation. Yes, these individuals are allowed to pursue and believe different things, but it does not mean they do not share traditions. The communism theory of individuals being told what they need to do seems more isolated. People that are told what to do become depressed and isolated in general, I do not see how the communist idea of this can work. According to James Burnham, when discussing communism from the Marxist point of view, “True communism will succeed the Revolution, it will combine all the richness of civilization with the purity of primitive communism, but in a new way – not just the primitive ownership of everything in common, but an organization of society such that, though no individual has any special ownership interest in the means of production, all can have an abundance of individual and personal goods” (Burnham, 1952). The idea of this sounds good, but people become greedy, not everyone wants the same stuff as everyone else. People begin to want more and decide to rebel against the system. Also, the “abundance of individuals and personal goods” is hard to imagine as well. The economic ideology of a communist theory makes it where an economic decline is easily susceptible. As a result, it is possible that there could be a shortage of goods for the people.

The history of liberalism also proves to be more effective than communism. Whereas communism has yet to be practiced, liberalism has been implemented in many societies. Referring back to the United States from earlier, other societies were copying their Lassiez-Faire and liberalism principles. On the other hand, the communism theory has proved not to work. It is hard to maintain a thriving economy when free-market competition is taken away. It forces people to look elsewhere, for example, in the underground market. One of the most essential problems with the communism theory is that it often can lead to totalitarianism. Earlier in the paper, I discussed the transition of a certain system to communism. Transitioning from a capitalistic system to a communist system is near impossible. During the transition, the economy will start to decline because going from a free market economy to an economy that is owned by the government greatly decreases money flow. For example, the communist theory aims to own means of production. Over time, the economy will slow down because money is not coming and going. Also, there are many internal conflicts in a communist theory. For example, one of the biggest problems of internal conflicts is groups within the party, these groups usually represent a belief of their own (Kornai, 1992). Internal conflicts can also happen between the influence between ethnic groups and power between generations (Kornai, 1992). Conflicts like these are when totalitarianism starts to become what was communism. For example, Joseph Stalin was part of the communist party in the Soviet Union. He became in charge and pursued absolute power (Library of Congress). According to the Library of Congress, “Stalin had eliminated all likely potential opposition to his leadership by late 1934 and was the unchallenged leader of both party and state. Nevertheless, he proceeded to purge the party rank and file and terrorize the entire country with widespread arrests and executions. During the ensuing Great Terror, which included the notorious show trials of Stalin’s former Bolshevik opponents in 1936-1938 and reached its peak in 1937 and 1938, millions of innocent Soviet citizens were sent off to labor camps or killed in prison” (Library of Congress).

In conclusion, I believe this proves that the theory of liberalism is a better alternative to the theory of communism. Liberalism promotes the idea of freedom and equality whereas the theory of communism wants everyone to be equal. Liberalism has been practiced and recognized to succeed. Whereas, the theory of communism has never been practiced and can lead to a totalitarian state. The basic ideas of liberalism are for the economy to thrive and for individuals to have an equal opportunities. On the other hand, the communism theory is a disadvantage to the economy because there is no economic flow. Communism’s idea is to provide individuals with equal opportunity, but the people are never allowed to grow. At the end of the day, liberalism is a more simple and effective theory compared to the theory of communism where the transition, in general, is a near impossible task in itself.

Globalization is a phenomenon which encompasses the idea and act of dramatic or gradual changes in a certain nation. These changes are meant to affect the actors in the society, for the very reason that it is them who has the capability to permit the said changes. In this hypothetical view of writing, it will focus on one of the effects of globalization, and that is the economic liberalism. Economic liberalism is a practice in a society which focuses on reinforcement of individuals rather than in a collective manner. Meaning, almost all the economic decisions are pursued by individuals than that of organizations. In this analysis, it aims to view hypothetically the different realms which compose the society, referred to as political, social, and economic and will be associated with the Philippines in the later discussions.

Economic Liberalism and Neoliberalism

Economic liberalism and neoliberalism are often associated with one another. These two theories shared a common idea about the separation of the state and the market and this relationship of non-relationship must be neutralized and maintained. As the definition that stands against others who tries to define Neoliberalism, David Harvey in his writing A brief History of neoliberalism, defined it in a wide range as “neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade”. Thus, it is not hard to understand economic liberalism as it has the same objective as neoliberalism. Some writers view neoliberalism as the new form of capitalism -a term that refers to economic liberalism- with a different approach. It does not suggest the rejuvenation of liberalism but replacing the old style with the new one.

One of reason why neoliberalism is related to economic liberalism is that, neoliberalism was urged to exist due to globalization. Neoliberalism often rely on third world countries and as a result to the vulnerability of these uncompetitive nations to the unexpected changes due to globalization.

With the idea imparted by neoliberalism through of its definition and history, the Philippines could not be blinded of what economic liberalism is. Neoliberalism will serve as the benchmark for foreseeing some of the possibilities when having liberalism as the standard for economic development. The interaction of different people through accumulation of ideas with regards to business may one of the ways to implement little by little the economic liberalism in social aspect. Forming a business with another private entity will improve the social life of every individual without the intervention of the state. If there are interventions that the state must accomplish, it is just to make sure that the transactions are valid and legal.

In relation to the objective of this paper, neoliberalism supports economic liberalism in a way that the priority is on individual freedom and emphasizing the rights of individual to private property. It is then emphasized that the pursuance of economic liberalism will rise potentially.

Economic Liberalism in Free-market Society

One thing that serves as an agent in free-market society is through liberalization in the economy. It requires the involvement of people as they are the ones who will be affected by the said phenomenon. Collectivism as opposed to liberalism requires also the participation of different sectors in the society in a collective manner, it is a product of the western world to organize the actors who will act as the main participants in one nation. The reason for the rampant collectivist ideas are viewed by Dr. Razeen Sally as “socialism, communism and nationalism were spread via colonial conquest, trade and Christian missionary activity”. It is described by Sally that these ideas of organizing the actors in the society were originated from the West and suddenly spread worldwide though different means.

As stated above, the way from which liberalism sprung is similar to that of its antipodal system. However, it is a fact that their nature is different. Economic liberalization serves as the most important part in achieving free-market society as it allows individual to decide on their economic interest without the intervention of the state, this thought is based on the readings provided by Prof. Frankel, a Harvard University professor. The society will not achieve the free-market system if economic liberalization will be left behind. It is termed as free-market for the reason that it would allow, for example, if not to eradicate, at least to reduce the tariffs lay on top of goods exported or imported in a certain country. The reduction in tariffs which would also mean free trade, exhibits the economic liberalization in the face of international trade. This act is just one of those many ways wherein economic liberalization shouts its connection to free-market economy.

According to Franz Josef Stegmann, there are four points that describe the idea of classical economic liberalism. These are “The ‘natural’ order of the economy”, “the individualistic idea of freedom”, “altruism of egoism” and “Competition as steering wheel of the economy”. The four ideas explain the importance of economic liberalism in achieving the free-market economy. One described as it is ‘natural’ in a sense for it is under the influence of philosophy of deism. Believing that the state -in relation to liberalism- need not to intervene in its natural system in terms of economic activities, if it happens that the state will force the intervention, surely it will fall into disorder. It is the same as if the state will control the economic freedom of an individual in a free-market society, every individual will be obliged to meet the standard of the state in terms of putting tariffs, prices, its number, etc. in every commodity that will go beyond boarders. Another is the working competition that serves as “steering wheel of the economy”, the need in obtaining monopoly is an example. Due to this “steering wheel”, a classical view of economic liberalism has developed and grew into what is called capitalism.

Just to put things clear, free-market economy does not totally hinder the intervention of the state. Let us put it in an example, an economy that is capitalist has a huge free-market system that is based on the “free price system” and “private property”. Nevertheless, the support from the government is largely needed to promote competitiveness of the market internationally and to address the inequalities which serve as an outcome of a free-market system. Thus, to neglect the role of the state in the free-market society is not advisable for this solely reason. The intervention of the state is not totally banned or unneeded, only it has its limitations when it comes to the system an economy practiced.

It is observed that the state and free-market system has been connected as it is with economic liberalism. It is sufficed to say that, whenever there exists free-market economy there would always be economic liberalism that fly around the corner that causes it to happen.

How Philippines view the Free-market economy

As described in the prior paragraphs on what is free-market society, it is now time to look on how the Philippines, a third world country, view the free-market economy which capitalist society has. There are some people argue that, Philippines is on its way to possess free-market economy. However, there are people who still view the Philippines as far from it. One of these people is Joseph J. Bautista, in his writing he argues that the Philippines is way too far from being Capitalist and viewed Philippines to have mixed economy for three definite reasons. The country has “Punishing tax-rates”, “anti-competitive market conditions”, and third is “weak private property rights”.

The tax rates in the Philippines is undoubtedly high based on the 2017 analysis of Joseph Bautista. It is because of inflation why the tax rate become even higher, because of this, the power Philippine peso become week as the time pass. In other words, the value of your hundred-peso bill today may not be the same for the value of hundred peso after 20 years. Using this analysis to tax rates, even if an individual has gross income of fifteen thousand per month this year and seven thousand per month fifteen or so years ago, it has the same purchasing power. Meaning, it could be viewed deceivingly that you receive bigger amount of money today than many years ago, yet you still have the same economic status for this span of years, nothing has changed. This is the reason why most of the ordinary Filipinos never did encounter an increase in terms of economic status and have nothing to do but to follow what is being offered by the society.

A country will not meet free-market economy if it has these three aspects. It definitely opposes the qualities that free-market society is trying to possess. No matter how other people insist that the Philippines is now a free-market society, the truth will just slap and will awaken every single person that it is impossible to happen for now, but the hopes of making it as a capitalist society has not been put to the corner.

Possibility of Economic Liberalization in the Philippines

In a hypothetical manner, economic liberalization could rule the Philippines in just a snap of one’s finger. It is surely possible to implement this kind of economic system. However, the questions are, what will be the benefits of the Philippines when it possesses free-market system? Is the Philippines ready for dramatical adjustments in terms of social, political, and especially in economy? To answer these questions, from here on forth, the view will be then hypothetical. All the information that will be given is based on solely assumptions and in hypothetical manner. It will be written for the reason of justifying what this paper is trying to suggest.

Given the fact that the Philippines has no single economic system, it is really hard to shift to something in no time. However, we must not belittle the country for it used to adjustments and adaptations. For example, the Philippines is used to adapt different cultures from different parts of the world. In this sense, this served as the preparatory stage to adapt economic liberalism. Another example is the adaptations of laws from different countries to meet the universal standard and to be classified as competitive globally.

Being a member of Association of South East Asian Nations, Philippines practice globalization. In this fact, we could form an assumption that Philippines will embrace economic liberalization willingly and easily as economic liberalism is being brought by globalization somehow. ASEAN nations also trade goods to the country (Philippines) and from the country due to its bond as member of one association.

Through facts about what the Philippines have now, it is really possible that economic liberalism will come at some time in the future. as it is one of the nations affected by globalization, there is no single impossibility of not possessing economic liberalization even if some economist from the Philippines view economic liberalization as an agent that has been prevented unconsciously with the economic activities practice by the country.

In a beer hall in Munich, a mesmerizing public speaker addressed the issues troubling the German people with a furious passion, calling for a new order to replace what he saw as an incompetent and inefficient liberal democratic regime run by an economic elite that was not translating the will of the people into action and had brought humiliation to a proud people. In the new Germany, all citizens would unselfishly serve the state or Volk; democracy would be abolished, and individual rights sacrificed for the good of the Volksgemeinschaft. The ultimate aim was to create a community of racially pure Germans absolutely loyal to their absolute leader, who would lead them in a campaign of racial cleansing (National WW2 Museum, 2019), and the conquest of lebensraum, or living space.

In an office in Moscow, President Yeltsin, facing humiliating losses in Chechnya and widespread economic depression from the failure of liberalization, unexpectedly signed over the Presidency of a previously obscure ex-KGB agent turned Prime Minister. This child of the Soviet Union acted immediately to ruthlessly crush the Chechnyan separatists. He struck a deal with the oligarchs to segregate the political and economic sectors of power. His handling of the economy and a fortuitous spike in oil prices caused the Russian economy to grow at a blistering average rate of 9% per year for 20 years (Aris and Tkachev, 2019). He promised the Russian people a reversal of the decline in living conditions that had followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, a revival of an imperialist foreign policy where Russia would once again become a world power to be feared and respected, a stable and strong Russia. He only asked that they abandon the liberalism that had failed them and instead embrace him as their increasingly more absolute leader.

The problems that face liberal democracy today: a lack of national identity, a lack of action, a lack of purpose, and a lack of order, are most definitely curable by abandoning it altogether. Let us, for a moment, consider this option, for it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Fascism has its roots in a school of thought rooted not only in Nietzschean philosophy in the case of National Socialism but also that of the Rousseauean and Hobbesian traditions. Mussolini wrote in his 1915 The Doctrine of Fascism: “If the 19th century were the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State…interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people…everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state. Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will….” Anybody that has read a lick of Rousseau or Hobbes cannot help but compare The Doctrine of Fascism with their writings. In the case of Hobbes, the idea of an all-embracing and embodying sovereign, containing everything and everybody bears a striking similarity to that of Mussolini’s theory of a total state. Nevertheless, it is Rousseau’s vision of a homogenous society run as a totalitarian absolute democracy based on a near-deified “General Will” where all give all to all that is at a certain level indistinguishable from what we saw from the Fascism of the 20th century. In both, the People, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the particular interests of any one individual, although, in fascism, there is the understanding that no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous and thus the uniparty leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will, which he dictates. Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of no longer representing the “general will.”

This option is certainly tempting when one observes chaos and inaction. Many of the ills that currently afflict the liberal, democratic West may indeed be curable by the hand of a strong state. The worst excesses of social liberalism have created a culture of ever more obscene degeneracy and decadence. There exists the temptation to use the state to restore order and morality. We know that liberalism is not natural. Natural is tribal. Fascism is our natural tribalism distilled and purified into a furious intensity. It is what works with our instinct. We’re fighting against thousands of years of human behavior and history to try and create something that no one’s ever done, and maybe we should stop trying.

Yet cynicism is not realism, for all the weary and knowing airs it affects. Cynicism is just cowardice; it is nothing less than a form of surrender. We must never embrace fascism in America. The American spirit has remained wholly distinct from the authoritarian spirit of the Old World because generations of men have laid down their lives to ensure it remains such. Dissatisfaction with the current state of liberalism does not mean one should begin to advocate for fascist ideology. Those who do are just as much a traitor to the Revolution as a communist agitators. These ideologies have wreaked inconceivable havoc and death on mankind, caused great suffering among persecuted peoples, and in the end, have shown themselves to be unsustainable and undesirable. While the death of nationalism is something to avoid, going to the other extreme and embracing nationalism to the extent where it means invading, slaughtering, enslaving, and persecuting outsiders is no better. The great wars of the 20th century were the consequence of excessive nationalism, and the suffering caused by them in the first place is why Europe is now hesitant to embrace a healthier amount of nationalism.

Rousseau’s belief that so-called democratic totalitarian systems lead to the will of the people being executed has proven itself to be horrifically untrue in the 20th century. The totalitarian states that are created in the name of the people always proclaim themselves as the “national socialist worker’s party” or the “democratic people’s republic” making them de jure the perfect Rousseauean states. But those that take the reins of power almost universally participate in the horrific abuse of it. Fascists have always ended up working with the moneyed, established elites to further exploit and oppress the working class instead of freeing them. What is enforced is not the general will but the particular interests of the people in charge. The illusion of democracy in “democratic people’s republics” always happens to work for the particular interests of those that count the votes.

The fundamental premise of authoritarianism is that what we actually want might not coincide with what we ought to want. This creates a problem: What to do with those who do not want what is best for them? With the gift of hindsight of the 250 years that passed after his works, it is easy to find Rousseau’s solution quite chilling: “Thus, in order for the social compact to avoid being an empty formula, it tacitly involves the commitment – which alone can give force to the others – that whoever refuses to obey the general will be forced to do so by the entire body. This means merely that he will be forced to be free”. This Orwellian concept of self-proclaimed benevolent paternalism should unsettle any student of history who has witnessed men bring hell on earth with good intentions. Rousseau believed there was a way of finding out what is good for society by determining the “general will” by having everyone vote for what they believe would be the best for society regardless of their particular interests, and then using a totalitarian state to force everyone to be free (obey the general will). He supposed that the general would tell us what was best for the community as a whole, while the positives and negatives of the private desires would cancel out. What actually happens is either the aforementioned tyranny of the few or, in the most ideal scenario, when the people realize that the results of an election will be imposed absolutely, they inevitably begin to vote in their particular interests thus creating a sum of private interests, the “will of all”. Rousseau’s belief that the will of all or the general can even exist in a determinable form is questionable in itself. Looking at it practically, this view seems like an unrealistic characterization of how humans and desire work. Rousseau emphasized that individuals should override their particular interests with what is best for the community, yet this seems virtually impossible. How can a person even decide what would be good for an entire community without arbitrarily and misinformed making inaccurate generalizations and thus angering many, if not most? Furthermore, who or what exactly sets the standard of good? It seems impossible that individuals would be able to separate their private interests and personal biases when they vote determined by what’s “good” for the community if they even do that instead of just throwing off any pretense and voting selfishly. Even disregarding this, the small homogeneous state Rousseau posits as a prerequisite for this totalitarian democracy in the first place is simply not achievable without utilizing violence. Our social fabric is composed of too many different races, economic backgrounds, and personalities for there to be a satisfying community-driven consensus. Additionally, one person may say something will benefit the community while another may say it does not. There can be no “common good” when the community itself is split into so many irreversible, inevitable factions. (Hadohe, 2010)

What then is the plan for the future? What, if anything, can we as liberals can do to restore a vision of America without resorting to totalitarian ideology, in the process likely destroying it altogether? The arrogance that we are the endpoint of mankind’s ideological evolution, that liberal democracy is the inevitable, Hegelian, final form of human government must be abandoned. We must synthesize liberalism with the teachings of non-liberal thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Edmund Burke, and even with the reactionary totalitarianism of the 20th century instead of rejecting them completely, for they arose due to the failure and flaws of liberalism. What is being called the “Right” today can be recast as a political attempt to save liberalism against the things that are eating away its substance?

The Founders aspired to create a republic in which the values so precious to a liberal society might flourish: However when society strays from these values, we must adopt a reactionary view. The sensible Burkean tradition of incremental change only works when we are going in the right direction. We must be palingenetic in thought and seek to revive the republic that our forebears envisioned. Conservatism is about the preservation of balance. Washington’s rejection of the crown is the seminal event that would define America, and rather than being a radical shift from history, it was the most potent embodiment of tradition. America is the culmination of a long history of Anglo legal traditions, protestant theology, and self-government. The establishment of a republic is at the very heart of American Conservatism because the value that binds the philosophy together is one of balance. Ponder the structure of a republic, a balance between democracy and aristocracy, or that of a federation, the balance between a confederacy and a unitary state. We must likewise balance liberty with order, freedom with virtue and responsibility, the wisdom of the elite with the will of the people, diversity with unity, and secularism with faith.

We must first and foremost recognize that individual liberty is a byproduct of an ordered society and disciplined individuals, not the absence of laws. Liberty is not an accident or a natural state of things. It is a very special thing that arises from discipline, order, and virtue. We can see in the failed states torn apart by warlords that there is no freedom without order. Huxley’s Brave New World also reminds us that Rousseau and Plato were right when they wrote that being dictated by our appetites and desires is not liberty, but enslavement. BNW’s World State fulfills John Mill’s utilitarian liberal dream of a perfect society in every way. Every need is fulfilled, every desire is met, and pleasure is maximized. Yet, as one reads it, there is an unease that something is terribly wrong. One cannot say that the citizens of the World State are truly free. There is an intuitive understanding that true freedom is more akin to what Rousseau described: living to values we impose on ourselves. When laws coincide with our will, we do not feel coerced. Instead, we feel free because we feel like we are doing what we wanted to do anyway. We cannot be truly free when we are enslaved to our passions, compelled to fulfill them, and therefore the law should be designed to help us master our passions so that we can truly be free (Antas 2016). We must balance our freedom with responsibility and virtue.

The influence of moneyed interests must be curbed if the will of the people is to drive our democracy. Without such restrictions, we lean toward plutocracy and aristocracy rather than maintaining the balance with democracy that is a republic. Limits on Super PACs and big donors should be reinstated to help restore this balance. Alongside that, while we absolutely should not pursue the policies of ethnic cleansing and racial purity that the NatSocs in Germany did, we must address the growing heterogeneity in the West and recognize that excessive diversity is not conducive to a unified liberal democracy. For the “general will” of Rousseau to form, the people must willing to put the interests of their nation above their own, which necessitates some degree of cultural homogeneity. To combat the tide of demographic shifts, we must impose strict immigration restrictions and rigorous assimilation policy to allow natural melting pots of intermarriage and common upbringing to integrate these foreigners into fellow citizens and countrymen. Happily, we are seeing this already happening, especially between Hispanic and White Americans, but the rate at which it is happening pales in comparison to the rate at which foreigners are entering the country. Rome worked when foreigners crossed its borders to become Romans. It failed when newcomers fled into the Empire and adhered to their own cultures. (Hanson, 2017). The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of x-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans or Asians or Africans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic (Roosevelt, 1905). We must find the balance between diversity and unity.

Liberalism depends on a higher state of mind that requires a strong foundation along with a lofty vision. For those of us who care about liberalism then, there is an imperative to ask: What is the American project? Is there anything the citizens of our republic can imagine to be a common idea around which we can unite and for which we can fight? During the 20th century, the Western intelligentsia suffered a similar kind of moral crisis: a kind of uncertainty about the core principles and foundational belief in democracy and liberalism. The rise of totalitarian ideologies of international godlessness and national race supremacy posed a threat to our worldview. Democracy did not seem to know why it should be preferred over alternatives whose advocates celebrated them so passionately and reverently. What democracy needed was a metaphysical justification – or, at least a set of metaphysically grounded reasons for preferring democracy to those great and terrifying rivals. (The Watchmen, Alan Jacobs). It was in this context that Christianity truly shone.

As described by Montesquieu in the Spirit of Laws, there are different principles by which different forms of government are driven, virtue being the spirit of a republic. A republic’s citizens must be frugal, egalitarian, homogeneous, and selfless. In order to instill this among a populace while also maintaining the principle of limited government, there must be a belief in some transcendent, objective moral order that can enforce a social order without the heavy hand of government. For liberals, the ideal religion is Christianity. Christianity teaches frugality, equality, love, industriousness, virtue, and selfless service while emphasizing the unique balance of both free will and the self-discipline and responsibility that must accompany it, a balance is so vital for a working liberal democracy. Christians should keep their democracies secular in policy but always grounded in their religious principles.

The people must be constantly educated on these high ideals. Societies such as ours naturally entropy into disorder and stagnation that births reactionary, authoritarian movements. To restore and preserve our tradition of liberalism will require of us constant diligence and allegiance to republican values and a vigilant watch against both totalitarian and collectivist ideologies while also guarding against the decadence and laziness that inspires decay and degeneracy in societies which in turn births the aforementioned reactionaryism. We aspire to something greater than either tribal-fascist warfare or the dictatorship of appetite. It won’t be easy, but it was never meant to be. It is hard work, but also noble work, for we are building a country here. Liberalism is not too far gone. We can still restore this Republic and the greater liberal political tradition of the West to what they were meant to be.

The terms ‘socialism’ and liberalism’ are used a lot nowadays, and many people often mistake one for the other. In order to differentiate between these two terms, one must keep in mind the clear-cut differences by defining the prevailing ideology of each term.

The tenets of socialism assert that the state should wield total economic power by manipulating prices of goods and wages of workers. Furthermore, socialism requires people to submit to the rule of law. In return for their compliance, citizens are provided with resources rationed by the government. On the other hand, liberalism is more challenging to define since it is further divided into classical and modern liberalism. Classical liberalism states that the government should take control of an institution in order to ensure that it continues to be of service to the people, free of charge. Classical liberalism does not see any need for the government to enforce law and order and subjugate its citizens under the iron rule of law and order. However, modern liberalism veers away from this ideology by adding a new twist.

Modern liberalism asserts that, aside from ensuring economic and political security, it is also the government’s job to interfere with people’s day-to-day affairs in order to maintain social security. Modern liberalism, in effect, can be compared to socialism, as both of them assert that the government can effectively uplift its citizens not only by seizing control of the economy or private institutions, but also by keeping a close watch on citizens to ensure that none of them become subversive. Many modern-day politicians have been supporting modern liberalism because they believe that the government can solve all problems once it is granted total power. These politicians point out the inequality of different classes in society, and propose reforms that at first seem to favor the poor and marginalized, but in the end just grant the government reason to extend its powers to curtail private interests. And even though liberals seem to advocate reforms to improve government policy, they are still embracing the same old political structure to further their own ambitions. The late U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt himself defined liberalism as the “saving grace for the far-sighted conservative,” and also said, “Reform what you want to preserve.

Capitalists and supporters of democracy believe that socialism and modern liberalism are detrimental to economic progress. Because prices of goods and wages of workers are controlled directly by the government, privately owned companies and institutions cannot flourish under a socialist or modern liberalist government. People who value freedom of speech and human rights likewise oppose socialism and modern liberalism, because they believe that such ideologies limit a citizen’s right to choose which products to buy, what job to take, or what religious belief to espouse. Even though modern liberalism is more subtle and suave than socialism, it still ends up giving too much power to the government in the guise of economic, political, and social security.