The document provides a comprehensive overview of various political theories, particularly focusing on liberalism, neoliberalism, and classical liberalism, detailing their historical evolution and key figures. It outlines the core principles, criticisms, and differences among these ideologies, emphasizing the impact of leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan on economic policies. Additionally, it delves into the relationships and distinctions between classical liberalism and libertarianism, as well as how modern liberalism has adapted over time.

1. Theories in IR
.

2. Terrorism
Realism
• Bush/ Obama’s foreign
policies
• Neo-con’s agenda
• Pre-emption
• Unilateralism
• Fiery speeches of Bush/
Obama
• Drones
• Afghn, Iraq, Libya, Iran…
Liberalism
• Dialogue/ Jirga
• Development
• Treating root causes
• Promoting Democracy
• Strengthening anti-
terrorism laws
• Institutional
approach…UN….

3. .
• relations theory •
• Idealism
Liberalism
Neoliberalism
Liberal Peace Theory
Sociological liberalism
Interdependence liberalism
Institutional liberalism
Republican liberalism • Realism
Classical realism
Neorealism (structural realism)
Offensive realism
Defensive realism
Neoclassical realism
Liberal realism ('English School') • Marxism
World-systems theory • Dependency theory • Functionalism
Neofunctionalism • Critical theories
Constructivism
Feminism • Other Approaches
International Ethics
Postcolonialism
Post-modernism
Historical sociology • Classifications
Rationalism

4. .
• • Idealism
Liberalism
Neoliberalism
Liberal Peace Theory
Sociological liberalism
Interdependence liberalism
Institutional liberalism
Republican liberalism • Realism
Classical realism
Neorealism (structural realism)
Offensive realism
Defensive realism
Neoclassical realism
Liberal realism ('English School') • Marxism
World-systems theory • Dependency theory • Functionalism
Neofunctionalism • Critical theories
Constructivism
Feminism • Other Approaches
International Ethics
Postcolonialism
Post-modernism
Historical sociology • Classifications
Rationalism

5. .
• Neoliberalism, or neo-classical liberalism, is a
product of classical economic liberalism. The
term was coined in 1938 at the Colloque Walter
Lippmann by the German sociologist and
economist Alexander Rüstow, one of the fathers
of Social market economy. The label refers to a
redefinition of classical liberalism, influenced by
the neoclassical theories of economics. Today,
the term "neoliberalism" is mostly used as a
pejorative by opponents

6. .
• Neoliberalism seeks to transfer part of the control
of the economy from public to the private sector,
under the belief that it will produce a more efficient
government and improve the economic indicators of
the nation.
• The definitive statement of the concrete policies
advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John
Williamson's "Washington Consensus," a list of
policy proposals that appeared to have gained
consensus approval among the Washington-based
international economic organizations (like the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank).
• Williamson's list included ten points:

7. .
• Fiscal policy discipline;[clarification needed]
• Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially
indiscriminate subsidies"[neutrality disputed]) toward broad-based
provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education,
primary health care and infrastructure investment;
• Tax reform– broadening the tax base[clarification needed] and
adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
• Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate)
in real terms;
• Competitive exchange rates;
• Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular
emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.);
any trade protection to be provided by law and relatively uniform
tariffs;
• Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;[clarification
needed]
• Privatization of state enterprises;This occurs not only in the sense of
the transfer of companies from the public to the private sector, but
also in the conversion of social rights into marketable objects. Health
and education,
• Deregulation –

8. .
• Arguments that stress the economic benefits of unfettered markets, in line
with neoliberalism,[neutrality disputed] first began to appear with Adam
Smith's (1776) Wealth of Nations and David Hume's writings on commerce,
leading to Classical liberal ideology based on Classical economics. These
writings were directed quite directly against the Mercantilist ideas that had
been dominant during most of the previous centuries, and served to guide
the policies of governments throughout much of the 19th century. There
were, however, several fundamental differences between classical
liberalism/economics and neo-liberalism/neoclassical economics Post-
1970s economic liberalism
• [edit] Chicago School
• The Chicago school of economics describes a neoclassical school of
thought within the academic community of economists, with a strong focus
around the faculty of University of Chicago.
• The school emphasizes non-intervention from government and rejects
regulation in laissez-faire free markets as inefficient. It is associated with
neoclassical price theory and libertarianism and the rejection of
Keynesianism in favor of monetarism until the 1980s, when it turned to
rational expectations. The school has impacted the field of finance by the
development of the efficient market hypothesis. In terms of methodology the
stress is on "positive economics"– that is, empirically based studies using
statistics to prove theory.
• Approximately 70% of the professors in the economics department have
been considered part of the school of thought

9. .
• United Kingdom
•
• Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan instituted economic liberal policies.
• Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister with a mandate to reverse the UK's
economic decline. Thatcher's political and economic philosophy emphasised reduced
state intervention more free markets, and more entrepreneurialismThe Administration
of Ronald Reagan governed from 1981 to 1989, and made a range of decisions that
served to liberalize[expand]
• the American economy.[Reagan] These policies are often described as
Reaganomics, and are often associated with supply-side economics (the notion that
policies should appeal to producers, in order to lower prices, and therefore make
products more affordable, rather than consumers, in order to cultivate economic
prosperity
• Critics of neoliberalism sometimes refer to it as the "American Model," which they
claim promotes low wages and high inequality. Latin America opposes it. Noam
Choamsky & Joseph Stiglitz also criticize it. Anti-globalzation group ATTAC also
criticize it. It has led to inequality & social murder.
• Clinton also fostered Neoliberal poilcies.

10. .
• Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the
19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It
followed earlier forms of liberalism in its commitment to personal
freedom and popular government, but differed from earlier forms of
liberalism in its commitment to free markets and classical
economics.[1] Notable classical liberals in the 19th century include
Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. Classical
liberalism was revived in the 20th century by Ludwig von Mises and
Friedrich Hayek, and further developed by Milton Friedman, Robert
Nozick, Loren Lomasky, and Jan Narveson.[2]
• The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all
forms of liberalism before the 20th century.
• And, after 1970, the phrase began to be used by Libertarians to
describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and
minimal government. It is sometimes difficult to tell which meaning is
intended in a given source

11. .
• The phrase classical liberalism is used in standard
academic sources to mean early liberalism,[3] often with
particular emphasis on the liberalism of Jacksonian
democracy in the 19th Century, which stressed laissez-
faire economics and Originalism[4].
• Another use of phrase is by Libertarians, who use it to
mean a form of liberalism in which the government does
not provide social services or regulate industry and
banking. Libertarians often claim that this belief was
shared by the American Founding Fathers.[5] Libertarian
classical liberalism is also called laissez-faire
liberalism.[6]
• The philosophy of classical liberalism in the Libertarian
sense of the phrase includes a belief in rational self-
interest, property rights, natural rights, civil liberties,
individual freedom, equality under the law, limited
government, and free markets.

12. .
• According to Razeen Sally the "normative core" of
classical liberalism is the idea that a laissez-faire
economic policy will bring about a spontaneous order or
invisible hand that benefits the society,[7] though this
does not necessarily prevent the state from providing
some limited basic public goods.[8]
• The qualification classical was applied retroactively to
distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions
of liberalism and its related movements, such as modern
liberalism and the Civil Rights movement.[9] Classical
liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal
government[10] and object to the welfare state.[11]

13. .
• Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton
Friedman, are credited with influencing a revival of
classical liberalism in the 20th century after it fell out of
favor beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
due to major economic depressions.[12][13] In relation to
economic issues, this revival is sometimes referred to,
mainly by its opponents, as "neoliberalism".
• The German "ordoliberalism" has a somewhat different
meaning, since the likes of Alexander Rüstow and
Wilhelm Röpke have advocated a more interventionist
state, as opposed to laissez-faire liberals.[14][15]
Classical liberalism has some commonalities with
modern libertarianism, with the terms being used almost
interchangeably by minarchist libertarians.[16

14. .
• In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little
opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many
reactionary interests. In a nation of farmers, especially farmers whose
workers were slaves, little attention was paid to the economic aspects of
liberalism. But as America grew, industry became a larger and larger part of
American life, and during the term of America's first populist president,
Andrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic
ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical
liberalism. Freedom was maximized when the government took a "hands
off" attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the
currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold. The ideas of classical
liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of
depressions[edit]
• Classical liberalism, free trade, and world peace
• Several liberals, including Adam Smith, and Richard Cobden, argued that
the free exchange of goods between nations could lead to world peace
• When goods cannot cross borders, armies will.
Frederic Bastiat
•

15. .
• By virtue of their mutual interest does nature unite
people against violence and war…the spirit of trade
cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit
dominates every people. For among all those
powers…that belong to a nation, financial power may be
the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble
cause of peace…and wherever in the world war
threatens to break out, they will try to head it off through
mediation, just as if they were permanently leagued for
this purpose - Immanuel Kant, the Perpetual Peace.
• Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the
welfare of the state and benefited a small but
concentrated elite minority. Summing up British
imperialism, which he believed was the result the
economic restrictions of mercantilist policies. To Cobden,
and many classical liberals, those who advocated peace
must also advocate free markets.

16. .
• [edit] Classical liberalism and freedom according to David Kelley
• Executive Director of The Objectivist Center and libertarian David Kelley
claims that classical liberals had a concept of freedom that is entirely at
odds with the modern liberal conception.[26] While classical liberals argued
for free trade and a limited central authority, Kelley claims that modern
liberals have redefined freedom and human rights to include expanded
government authority over property, labor, and capital. Adam Smith argued
that in order to best serve human welfare, individuals should be left free to
follow their own interests, which were to "sustain life and to acquire goods"
and that a government should abstain "from interference in free enterprise,
putting checks only on undue strife and competition."[36]
• On the classical liberal concept of freedom the Edinburgh Review wrote in
1843: Be assured that freedom of trade, freedom of thought, freedom of
speech, and freedom of action, are but modifications of one great
fundamental truth, and that all must be maintained or all risked; they stand
and fall together.[37]

17. .
• Kelley also suggests that classical liberals understood
liberty to be a negative freedom—a freedom from the
coercive actions of others. Kelley claims that modern
liberals include positive freedoms in liberty, which are
rights to the provision of goods.[26] He goes on to claim
that modern understandings of positive freedom is the
opposite the classical thinking of negative freedom.
• He claims that the theory of classical liberalism
appropriated most of classical republicanism theorists
due to their dedication to the issue of liberty

18. .
• Classical liberalism and libertarianism
• Main article: Controversies over the term liberal
• Raimondo Cubeddu of the Department of Political Science of the University
of Pisa says "It is often difficult to distinguish between 'libertarianism' and
'classical liberalism'. Those two labels are used almost interchangeably by
those we may call libertarians of a 'minarchist' persuasion—scholars who,
following Locke and Nozick, believe a state is needed in order to achieve
effective protection of property rights".[40] Libertarians see themselves as
sharing many philosophical, political, and economic undertones with
classical liberalism, such as the ideas of laissez-faire government, free
markets, and individual freedom. Nevertheless, Samuel Freeman, a staunch
advocate of 'welfare liberalism' (that he argues should be called 'High
liberalism') rejects this as a mere "superficial" resemblance:
• Libertarianism's resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end,
libertarians reject essential liberal institutions. Correctly understood,
libertarianism resembles a view that liberalism historically defined itself
against, the doctrine of private political power that underlies feudalism. Like
feudalism, libertarianism conceives of justified political power as based in a
network of private contracts. It rejects the idea, essential to liberalism, that
political power is a public power to be impartially exercised for the common
good.[41]
• Modern libertarianism, rooted in classical liberalism, advocates free markets
as well as a foreign policy of military restraint

19. .
• Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom; worthy of a free
man, gentlemanlike, courteous, generous"[1]) is the belief in the
importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted
today throughout the world, and was recognized as an important
value by many philosophers throughout history. The Roman
Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote praising "the idea of a polity
administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of
speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of
all the freedom of the governed".[2]
• Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and
rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier
theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings,
hereditary status, and established religion. John Locke is often
credited with the philosophical foundations of modern liberalism. He
wrote "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or
possessions."[3]
• In the 17th Century, liberal ideas began to influence governments in
Europe, in nations such as The Netherlands, Switzerland, England
and Poland, but they were strongly opposed, often by armed might,
by those who favored absolute monarchy and established religion

20. .
• Ideas[hide]
• Political liberalism- liberal democracy
Economic liberalism- free market
Cultural liberalism
Political freedom
Democratic capitalism
Democratic education
Free trade
Individualism- civil rights, rule of law
Laissez faire
Liberal democracy
Liberal neutrality
Negative / positive liberty
Market economy
Open society
Popular sovereignty
Rights (individual)
Seperation of church and state

21. .
• There were many precursors to liberalism, including certain aspects of the Magna
Carta, which reduced the power of the English monarch,[15] and medieval Islamic
ethics, which allowed some freedom of religion.[16][17] But most histories of modern
liberal thought begin with John Locke (1632 - 1704).
• Locke's Two Treatises on Government (1689) discussed two fundamental liberal
ideas
• On the European continent, the doctrine of laws restraining even monarchs
was expounded by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, whose
The Spirit of the Laws argues that "Better is it to say, that the government
most conformable to nature is that which best agrees with the humour and
disposition of the people in whose favour it is established," rather than
accept as natural the mere rule of force. Following in his footsteps, political
economist Jean-Baptiste Say and Destutt de Tracy were ardent exponents
of the "harmonies" of the market, and in all probability it was they who
coined the term laissez-faire. This evolved into the physiocrats, and to the
political economy of Rousseau.[19][20]
• The late French enlightenment saw two figures who would have
tremendous influence on later liberal thought: Voltaire, who argued that the
French should adopt constitutional monarchy and disestablish the Second
Estate, and Rousseau, who argued for a natural freedom for mankind.
•
• Anders Chydenius
• Rousseau also argued the importance of a concept that appears repeatedly
in the history of liberal thought, namely, the social contract

22. .
• Adam Smith (1723–1790) expounded the theory that individuals could
structure both moral and economic life without direction from the state, and
that nations would be strongest when their citizens were free to follow their
own initiative. He advocated an end to feudal and mercantile regulations, to
state-granted monopolies and patents, and he promulgated "laissez-faire"
economic
• Immanuel Kant was strongly influenced by both Hume's empiricism and
continental rationalism. His most important contributions to liberal thinking
are in the realm of ethicsThe American Revolution of 1776 established the
first government based on liberal principles without a monarch or an
aristocracy, and with a Bill of Rights that guaranteed freedom of religion.
The French Revolution attempted to do the same, but radicals took power,
leading to the Reign of Terror, and a reaction which restored the monarchy.
•
• Thomas Paine
• Liberal revolutions:
• The American Declaration of Independence proclaimed the liberal ideals of
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine,
Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were instrumental in creating a country
whose constitution was based on liberal principle
• French revolution
•

23. .
• [edit] Modern Liberalism
• The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove
this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2009)By the beginning of the 20th century, political liberalism
had become the norm throughout the West, but economic liberalism had resulted in a vast concentration of wealth,
with the majority of mankind living in a state of poverty. The economic world was shaken by a series of
depressions. Freedom, which in the past had been threatened by autocratic governments, was now threatened by
the despotism of the rich.[38]
• Communism offered a revolutionary alternative to liberalism, promising a more just distribution of wealth.[39] The
political history of the 20th Century can be seen as a cold war between liberal democracy and communism,[40]
although other enemies of liberalism, fascism and more recently Islamism, have also struggled for dominance.[41]
• Liberalism's answer to communism came in the form of social liberalism, as proposed by the British philosopher T.
H. Green. His writing stressed the interdependence of human beings, and the need for a government that would
promote freedom by providing health care and education, and fight the forces of prejudice and ignorance.[42]
• Another brand of liberalism arose at this time in opposition to social liberalism, called Social Darwinism, as
discussed in the writing of another British philosopher, Herbert Spencer. Where Green stressed community and
interdependence, Spencer stressed individuality and self-interest. In his view, government should get out of the
way, or at most serve as a "night-watchman", and allow human beings freedom to compete. In this competition,
the weak would die and the strong survive, to the eventual improvement of the human race.[43]
• While the social liberals strove to eliminate the poverty that made communism attractive, the followers of social
Darwinism considered that a weak response, and favored war as the only sure method of destroying communism
• At the same time that communist revolutions were changing the political landscape in the East, the social liberals
were making major changes in the West. They recognized the power of capitalism to produce wealth, and believed
that communism would fail on economic rather than military grounds. At the same time, they argued that the
benefits of the wealth produced by capitalism should be shared with the general population, and not left in the
hands of the few. They sponsored programs of civic improvement, building of schools, hospitals, public
transportation systems, and sewage systems. During times of depression, these programs provided jobs for the
unemployed, who would otherwise either starve or be a threat to orderly society

24. .
• In the study of international relations, Neoliberalism refers to a school of
thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be,
concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains
to other nation-states. This theory is often mistaken with neoliberal
economic ideology, although both use some common methodologic tools,
as game theory
• Development
• Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye are considered the founders of the
neolliberal school of thought; Keohane's book is a classic of the genre.
Another major influence is the hegemonic stability theory of Stephen
Krasner, Charles P. Kindleberger, and others
• The heart of Keohane and Nye’s argument is that in international politics
there are, in fact, multiple channels that connect societies exceeding the
conventional Westphalian system of states. This manifests itself in many
forms ranging from informal governmental ties to multinational corporations
and organizations.
• Finally, the use of military force is not exercised when complex
interdependence prevails. The idea is developed that between countries in
which a complex interdependence exists, the role of the military in resolving
disputes is negated. However, Keohane and Nye go on to state that the role
of the military is in fact important in that "alliance’s political and military
relations with a rival

25. .
• [edit] Activities of the International System
• Neoliberal international relations thinkers often employ game theory to
explain why states do or do not cooperate;[1] since their approach tends to
emphasize the possibility of mutual wins, they are interested in institutions
which can arrange jointly profitable arrangements and compromises.
• Neoliberalism is a response to Neorealism; while not denying the anarchic
nature of the international system, neoliberals argue that its importance and
effect has been exaggerated. The neoliberal argument is focused on the
neorealists' underestimation of "the varieties of cooperative behavior
possible within... a decentralized system."[2] Both theories, however,
consider the state and its interests as the central subject of analysis;
Neoliberalism may have a wider conception of what those interests are.
• Neoliberalism argues that even in an anarchic system of autonomous
rational states, cooperation can emerge through the building of norms,
regimes and institutions.
• In terms of the scope of international relations theory and foreign
interventionism, the debate between Neoliberalism and Neorealism is an
intra paradigm one, as both theories are positivist and focus mainly on the
state system as the primary unit of analysis

26. .
• [edit] Totalitarianism
• In mid-20th century, liberalism began to define itself in opposition to
totalitarianism. The term was first used by Giovanni Gentile to
describe the socio-political system set up by Benito Mussolini.
Joseph Stalin would apply it to German Nazism, and after the war it
became a descriptive term for what liberalism considered the
common characteristics of fascist, Nazi, and Marxist-Leninist
regimes. Totalitarian regimes sought and tried to implement
absolute centralized control over all aspects of society, in order to
achieve prosperity and stability. These governments often justified
such absolutism by arguing that the survival of their civilization was
at risk. Opposition to totalitarian regimes acquired great importance
in liberal and democratic thinking, and totalitarian regimes were
often portrayed as trying to destroy liberal democracy

27. .
• Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman wrote that economic freedom
is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil
and political freedoms. Hayek believed the same totalitarian
outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state
sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the
policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or
Roosevelt.
• Another influential critic of totalitarianism was Karl Popper. In The
Open Society and Its Enemies he defended liberal democracy and
advocated open society, in which the government can be changed
without bloodshed. Popper argued that the process of the
accumulation of human knowledge is unpredictable and that the
theory of ideal government cannot possibly exist. Therefore, the
political system should be flexible enough so that governmental
policy would be able to evolve and adjust to the needs of the
society; in particular, it should encourage pluralism and
multiculturalism

28. .
• [edit] After World War II
•
• Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were pioneers in a new age of economic
liberalism.
• As it became increasingly clear that totalitarianism failed to produce the benefits it
claimed to provide, Western liberalism split into two branches. In the UK, for example,
the Liberal Party, even after it joined forces with the Social Democratic Party to
become the Liberal Democrats, is in third place, behind the Labour Party and the
Conservative Party. All three parties embrace liberalism as a philosophy. The
divisions are along the lines outlined in the preceding section, between followers of
Berlin and Popper on the one hand and followers of Hayek and Friedman on the
other. The same process occurred in many other countries, as the social democratic
parties took the leading role in the Left, while pro-business conservative parties took
the leading role in the Right.
• The period immediately after World War II saw the dominance of social liberalism.
Linking modernism and progressivism to the notion that a populace in possession of
rights and sufficient economic and educational means would be the best defense
against totalitarian threats, the liberalism of this period took the stance that by
enlightened use of liberal institutions, individual liberties could be maximized, and
self-actualization could be reached by the broad use of technology.

29. .
• Calling itself libertarianism, this movement was
centered around such schools of thought as
Austrian Economics.[57]
• All governments increased in both power and
spending, under liberal and conservative leaders
alike. After the 1970s, the liberal pendulum
swung away from the idea of increasing the role
of government, and towards a greater use of the
free market and laissez-faire principles. This has
been critisized by some in the early 21st century,
asserting that deregulation of the financial
industry led to the recession of the mid-2000's

30. .
• Radicalism
• Further information: Radicalism (historical)
• In various countries in Europe and Latin-America, in the nineteenth century and the
beginning of the twentieth century, a radical tendency arose next to or as a successor
to traditional liberalism. In the United Kingdom the Radicals united with traditionally
liberal Whigs to form the Liberal Party. In other countries, including Switzerland,
Germany, Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands, these left-wing liberals
formed their own radical parties with various names.[77] Similar events occurred in
Argentina and Chile.[78] In French political literature it is normal to make clear
separation between liberalism and radicalism. In Serbia liberalism and radicalism
have and have had almost nothing in common. But even the French radicals were
aligned to the international liberal movement in the first half of the twentieth century,
in the Entente Internationale des Partis Radicaux et des Partis Démocratiques
similaires[79]
• [edit] Conservative liberalism
• Main article: Conservative liberalism
• Examples include the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy in the Netherlands,
the Moderate Party (Sweden), the Liberal Party of Denmark and, in some ways, the
Free Democratic Party of Germany.
• [edit] Liberal conservatism
• Main article: Liberal conservatism
• Liberal conservatism is a widespread liberal movement. Examples include the Liberal
Democratic Party in Japan, Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Front Party
(Brazil),Forza Italia, Civic Platform (Poland), and the Liberal Party of Australia

31. .
• [edit] International relations theory
• Main article: Liberal international relations theory
• "Liberalism" in international relations is a theory that holds that state
preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of
state behavior. Unlike realism where the state is seen as a unitary actor,
liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary
from state to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system
or government type. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is
not limited to the political/security ("high politics"), but also economic/cultural
("low politics") whether through commercial firms, organizations or
individuals. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are
plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power, such
as cultural capital (for example, the influence of a country's films leading to
the popularity of its culture and the creation of a market for its exports
worldwide). Another assumption is that absolute gains can be made through
co-operation and interdependence – thus peace can be achieved.
• Liberalism as an international relations theory is not inherently linked to
liberalism as a more general domestic political ideology. Increasingly,
modern liberals are integrating critical international relations theory into their
foreign policy positions

32. .
• Neoliberalism
• Originally coined 1938 at the Colloque Walter Lippmann by the
German sociologist and economist Alexander Rüstow[80],
"neoliberalism" is a label referring to the recent reemergence of
classical liberalism among political and economic scholars and
policy-makers. The label is usually used by people who oppose
liberalism; proponents usually describe themselves simply as
"liberals".
• The emerged liberalism—like classical liberalism—supports free
markets, free trade, and decentralized decision-making. Despite
favoring less regulation and maximizing free trade, neoliberals differ
on their support of domestic taxes, beliefs can range from anarcho-
capitalist to social democrat in this field. Since the 1970s, most of
the world's countries have become more liberal.
• Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (born 1937) is the co-founder, along with Robert
Keohane, of the international relations theory neoliberalism

33. .
• Smart power is a term in international relations defined by Joseph
Nye as "the ability to combine hard and soft power into a winning
strategy."[1][2] According to Chester A. Crocker, , and , smart power
"involves the strategic use of diplomacy, persuasion, capacity building, and
the projection of power and influence in ways that are cost-effective and
have political and social legitimacy" – essentially the engagement of both
military force and all forms of diplomacy.[3]
• The term, invented in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, comes as a
reaction to George W. Bush's more neoconservative-driven foreign
policy.[4] Viewed as a liberal alternative to such policy, its proponents prefer
international institutions that provide a major role, as opposed to solo role,
to the United States.[4] Smart power has also been viewed as an alternative
for soft power because the latter can reinforce stereotypes of Democratic
politicians being perceived as weak[edit] Clinton usage
• The term gained notice when New York Senator Hillary Clinton used it
frequently during her Senate confirmation hearing on January 13, 2009, for
the position of Secretary of State under the administration of President
Barack Obama.[9]
• We must use what has been called smart power — the full range of tools at
our disposal — diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural —
picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart
power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.

34. .
• Neoconservatism
• Main article: Neoconservatism
• Despite its name, Neoconservatism can be considered a liberal
political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America,
which supports actively using American economic and military
power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other
countries.[82][83][84]
• Unlike traditional American conservatives, neoconservatives are
generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state;
and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to
interfere for overriding social purposes.[85]
• Neoconservative philosophy was originally born out of the
aggressive idealism of former socialists and social liberals such as
Irving Kristol. Since then, neoconservatism has arguably branched
out into various forms

35. .
• Transformational Diplomacy is a diplomacy initiative championed
by former United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for
reinvigorating American Foreign Policy and the United States
Foreign Service.
• As Secretary of State, Rice championed the expansion of
democratic governments. Rice stated that the September 11, 2001
attacks were rooted in “oppression and despair” and so, the U.S.
must advance democratic reform and support basic rights
throughout the greater Middle East.[1] Rice has also reformed and
restructured the department, as well as U.S. diplomacy as a whole.
"Transformational Diplomacy" is the goal which Rice describes as
"work[ing] with our many partners around the world… [and] build[ing]
and sustain[ing] democratic, well-governed states that will respond
to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in
the international system

36. .
• Rice's Transformational Diplomacy involved five core elements:
• Relocating American diplomats to the places in the world where they are needed most, such as China, India,
Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, South Africa, and Lebanon.
• Requiring diplomats to serve some time in hardship locations such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Angola; gain
expertise in at least two regions; and become fluent in two foreign languages, such as Chinese, Arabic, or Urdu.
• Focusing on regional solutions to problems like terrorism, drug trafficking, and diseases.
• Working with other countries on a bilateral basis to help them build a stronger infrastructure, and decreasing
foreign nations' dependence on American hand-outs and assistance.
• Creating a high-level position, Director of Foreign Assistance, to oversee U.S. foreign aid managed by the two
agencies that manage the majority of foreign aid, the Department of State and the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID). However this new entity would not directly supervise foreign aid managed by
other U.S. Government agencies or departments such as the Department of Defense or the Department of
Agriculture.
• Rice said that these moves were needed to help "maintain security, fight poverty, and make democratic reforms"
in these countries and would help improve foreign nations' legal, economic, healthcare, and educational
systems.[2][3]
• [edit] Regionalization
• Another aspect of Transformational Diplomacy is the emphasis on finding regional solutions. Rice also pressed for
finding transnational solutions as well, stating that "in the 21st century, geographic regions are growing ever more
integrated economically, politically and culturally. This creates new opportunities but it also presents new
challenges, especially from transnational threats like terrorism and weapons proliferation and drug smuggling and
trafficking in persons and disease."[2]
• Another aspect of the emphasis on regional solutions is the implementation of small, agile, "rapid-response" teams
to tackle problems

37. .
• Social democracy
• Main article: Social democracy
• The basic ideological difference between liberalism and social democracy
lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual. Liberals value liberty,
rights, freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual
happiness, and regard democracy as an instrument to maintain a society
where each individual enjoys the greatest amount of liberty possible
(subject to the Harm Principle). Hence, democracy and parliamentarianism
are mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the
amount of liberty they promote, and are not valued per se. While the state
does have an important role in ensuring positive liberty, liberals tend to trust
that individuals are usually capable in deciding their own affairs, and
generally do not need deliberate steering towards happiness.
• Social democracy, on the other hand, has its roots in socialism (especially
in democratic socialism), and typically favours a more community-based
view. While social democrats also value individual liberty, they do not
believe that real liberty can be achieved for the majority without
transforming the nature of the state itself. Having rejected the revolutionary
approach of Marxism, and choosing to further their goals through the
democratic process, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong
skepticism for capitalism, which they believe needs to be regulated or
managed for the greater good. This focus on the greater good may,
potentially, make social democrats more ready to step in and steer society
in a direction that is deemed to be more equitable.

38. .
• Libertarianism
• Main article: Libertarianism
• Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad
spectrum[87] of political philosophies which
advocate the maximization of individual
liberty[88] and the minimization or even abolition
of the state.[89][90] Libertarians embrace
viewpoints across that spectrum, ranging from
pro-property to anti-property, from minarchist to
openly anarchist

39. .
• A liberal autocracy is a non-democratic government that follows the
principles of liberalism. Until the twentieth century, "most countries in
Western Europe were liberal autocracies, or at best, semi-democracies."[1]
One example of a "classic liberal autocracy" was the Austro-Hungarian
Empire.[2] According to Fareed Zakaria, a more recent example is Hong
Kong, until July 1, 1997, which was ruled by the British Crown. He says that
until 1991 "it had never held a meaningful election, but its government
epitomized constitutional liberalism, protecting its citizens' basic rights and
administering a fair court system and bureaucracy."
• The existence of real liberties in many of these autocracies is very
questionable. Nineteenth century autocracies often abolished feudal
institutions like serfdom, guilds, privileges for the nobility, and inequality
before the law. However, freedom of speech and freedom of association
were at best limited. As such, liberal autocracy often preceded various
forms of electoral democracy in the evolution of these nations, being much
more open than feudal monarchies but less free than modern liberal
democracies

40. .
• In the United States the term liberal elite is a political phrase to describe
affluent, politically left-leaning people. It is commonly used with the
pejorative implication that the people who support the rights of the working
class are themselves members of the upper class, or upper middle class,
and are therefore out of touch with the real needs of the people they claim
to support and protect. The phrase "liberal elite" should not be confused
with the term "elite" as used by writers such as Vilfredo Pareto and C.
Wright Mills. They use the term to mean those who exercise the most
political power.
• The concept of 'liberal elites' is a product of 'new class' discourse, which
emerged in the United States in the 1970s. Like the 'new class', liberal elites
are often understood to be university/college educated professionals, often
considered to wield immense cultural power in the media, academy, and
school system. The label suggests that any such cultural power is used to
gain influence in politics beyond the group's numerical significance. Further,
any such influence tends to be characterised as (a) advocating the interests
of 'fringe' groups to the detriment of 'mainstream' opinion; and (b) pursuing
political goals that are self-serving and/or frivolous, with the effect of
restricting public choice.
• The label is essentially a rhetorical device with infinitely flexible meaning. In
various contexts—usually polemical—it has been used to refer to political
positions as diverse as secularism, environmentalism, feminism, or a
number of other left-leaning positions

41. .
• Classical Contributors to Liberalism
• Laozi
• Aristotle
• "Humanism"
• Niccolò Machiavelli
• Thomas Hobbes
• Baruch Spinoza
• From Locke to Mill
• John Locke
• Charles de Montesquieu
• Voltaire
• Benjamin Franklin
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau
•

42. .
• Adam Smith
• Immanuel Kant
• Edmund Burk
• Thomas Paine
• Thomas Jefferson
• Jeremy Bentham
• Emmanuel Ralph Waldo Emerson
• Alexis de Tocqueville
• Friedrich Schiller

43. .
Mill and further, the development of
(international) liberalism
• John Stuart Mill
• Jacob Burckhardt
• Herbert Spencer
• Max Weber
• Milton Friedman
• James Buchanan
• Joseph Stiglitz
• Francis Fukuyuma

44. .
• Conservatism in the United States is a major American political philosophy. In contemporary
American politics, it is often associated with the Republican Party. Most conservatives agree with
most of these principles: that America is a Christian nation[1][2] , preservation of moral order and
of tradition[3], capitalism, anti-communism, American exceptionalism, a strong military, smaller
federal government, and lower taxes. They often oppose labor unions, question global warming,
and opposed the ERA.[4] [5] [6]
• There has always been a conservative tradition in America, but the American conservative
tradition was popularized by Russell Kirk in 1953, when he wrote The Conservative Mind. In 1955,
William F. Buckley, Jr. founded National Review, a conservative magazine that included
traditionalists, such as Kirk, along with Roman Catholics, libertarians, and anti-communists. In the
1970s moral issues—especially regarding abortion, sexuality and the family—became politically
prominent and conservatives staked out distinctive positions, often with grass roots support from
religious conservative organizations such as the Moral Majority. This bringing together of separate
ideologies under a conservative umbrella was known as "fusionism".
• Politically, the conservative movement in the U.S. has often been a coalition of various groups
and ideas, which has sometimes contributed to its electoral success and other times been a
source of internal conflict.[7] Modern conservatism became a major political force in 1964, when
Barry Goldwater, a U.S. Senator from Arizona and author of The Conscience of a Conservative
(1960), won the Republican presidential nomination after a fierce contest. He lost badly but
permanently shifted the party to the right. Goldwater attracted white Southern Democrats,
alienated by Democratic support of Federal Civil Rights legislation.
• In the 1980s Ronald Reagan solidified conservative Republican strength by appealing to
fundamentalist Christians who were concerned about social trends which they considered hostile
to their beliefs. The Reagan model became the conservative standard for social, economic and
foreign policy issues. The political transformation was such that historians and textbooks now
routinely refer to the "The Age of Reagan" or "Reagan Era."[8]
• According to a June 2009 Gallup poll, 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative,
compared to 35% moderate and 21% liberal. According to the same survey, few Americans
consider themselves either extreme liberals or extreme conservatives; most consider themselves
moderates

45. .
• Liberalism in US: America's founders were revolutionary in spirit, had great reverence for
reason, and would not allow traditional forms of government to control them. Their insistence on
separation of church and state was not only a nod to the deist beliefs of many of the founders, it
was a reasonable way to prevent religious wars that had plagued Europe for centuries, and
denied ordinary religious freedom.
At the same time as these revolutionaries were scripting guarantees of human rights, English
parliamentarian Edmund Burke, considered the father of conservatism, sought to preserve the
rule of British monarchy for the sake of tradition. It would seem that tradition can be a two-edged
sword.
Liberals cling to the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal,"
and are known for championed civil rights in various forms. The equality ideal itself was
expounded by Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau, who then inspired the
likes of Jefferson and Madison.
Liberalism supports a level playing field for opportunities that transcends wealth, race, religion,
and even name. While this contributed whole-cloth to the idea of the American Dream, it did not
occur spontaneously, or sprout from tradition, religious or otherwise. The founders believed that
human reason would lead to an ever progressing society, in contrast to a never-ending stasis.
Equality fueled the potential of reason.
This belief has led to many breakthroughs that we all benefit from. It has also led to detrimental
consequences, when change was instituted without proper foresight, and at great cost to those
who might not agree with change.
In the attempt to demonize liberalism in recent decades, it is sometimes accused of being un-
American, despite the founders' intent. The following is a reminder that this charge is completely
invalid
• The answers to our problems will never be found in liberalism or conservatism. Never.
Complete support for one extreme or the other merely fortifies a stalemate that sinks in its own
corruption.
Common sense tells us that a healthy life embraces change and tradition, not pit one against
the other, .. One should have a balanced approach. Nobody can be 100% liberal or conservative.
we embrace the liberal and conservative traditions that we have, merge them into something
positive

46. .
• Conservatism in the U.S. is actually a reaction to what are
perceive to be liberal excesses. In other words, it is not a so much a
separate, conflicting ideology. In America, is too rooted in American
liberalism, which has provided our traditions, for that. It is an attempt
to tone liberalism down, and standardize what we have into a fixed
norm. It is nationalizing the results of our original, revolutionary
intent and recognizing them as fixed, reliable traditions, a status quo
that needs defending. It wants no more change, or very little. When
change is inevitable, it should be taken in slow doses that preserve
the core of every day life.
What was perceived as conservative bigotry in the Civil Rights
movement of the 60s was actually a call to slow down so that
change could happen without forcing new behavior, and in its own,
natural time. We saw this a hundred years earlier, when Abraham
Lincoln resisted emancipation, believing that slavery would
disappear as a matter of moral course, though it might take decades

47. .
• In the United States today, the word "conservative" is often used very differently from
the way the word was used in the past and still is used in many parts of the world.
The core ideals of historical conservatism, the way they are popularly understood
today, were preserving the power of the land-owning class and preserving strong ties
between church and state. As the industrial revolution led to a new manufacturing
and professional elite, the ideals of conservatism changed to embrace laissez-faire
economics and an opposition to socialism.[35]
• In the United States, from the mid-20th century on, these two forms of conservatism
have largely combined, but still are at odds with those who believe in both limited
government and free market economics. Barry Goldwater is one example of a "free
enterprise" conservative, one of the last Republican proponents of classical liberalism
and small government. Jerry Falwell is an example of a Christian conservative, and
indicative of the new alliance between large government conservatives, like George
W. Bush, and the religiously-informed proponents of conservative social policy. Many
conservatives cite Ronald Reagan as a self-declared conservative who incorporated
all of these conservative themes in his political ideology.
• In the 21st century U.S., some of the groups calling themselves "conservative"
include
• :Classical or institutional conservatism — Opposition to rapid change in
governmental and societal institutions( emphasize on slow change)
• Ideological conservatism or right-wing conservatism — In contrast to the anti-
ideological classical conservatism, right-wing conservatism is, as its name implies,
ideological. It favors business and established religion, and opposes socialism,
fascism, and communism.
• Christian conservatism — Conservative Christians are primarily interested in family
values. They believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation,

48. .
• Neoconservatism — A modern form of conservatism :
• supports a more assertive, interventionist foreign policy, aimed at
promoting democracy abroad.
• Neoconservatism was first described by a group of disaffected
liberals, and thus Irving Kristol, usually credited as its intellectual
progenitor, defined a neoconservative as "a liberal who was mugged
by reality." Although originally regarded as an approach to domestic
policy (the founding instrument of the movement, Kristol's The
Public Interest periodical, did not even cover foreign affairs), through
the influence of figures like Dick Cheney, Robert Kagan, Richard
Perle, Kenneth Adelman and (Irving's son) Bill Kristol, it has become
most famous for its association with the foreign policy of the George
W. Bush administration.
• Many of the nation's most prominent and influential conservatives
during the two terms of the Bush administration were considered
"neoconservative" in their ideological orientation.[36]

49. .
• Limited government conservatism — Limited government
conservatives look for a decreased role of the federal government.
They follow Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in their suspicion
of a powerful federal government.
• Paleoconservatism — Arising in the 1980s in reaction to
neoconservatism, stresses tradition, especially Christian tradition
and the importance to society of the traditional family. Some,
Samuel P. Huntington for example, argue that multiracial, multi-
ethnic, and egalitarian states are inherently unstable.[37]
Paleoconservatives are generally isolationist, and suspicious of
foreign influence. The magazines Chronicles and The American
Conservative are generally considered to be paleoconservative in
nature.

50. .
• Libertarian conservatism or Fusionism— Emphasizes a strict interpretation of the
Constitution, particularly with regard to federal power. Libertarian conservatism is
constituted by a broad, sometimes conflicted, coalition including pro-business social
moderates, those favoring classic states' rights, individual liberty activists, and many
of those who place their socially liberal ideology ahead of their fiscal beliefs. This
mode of thinking tends to espouse laissez-faire economics and a critical view of the
Federal Government. Libertarian conservatives' emphasis on personal freedom often
leads them to have social positions contrary to those of Christian conservatives. The
libertarian branch of conservatism may have similar disputes that isolationist
paleoconservatives would with neoconservatives. However libertarian conservatives
may be more militarily interventionist or support a greater degree of military strength
than other libertarians. Contrarily strong preference for local government puts
libertarian conservatives in frequent opposition to international government [edit]
• Social conservatism and tradition
• Main article: Social conservatism
• Social conservatism is generally dominated by defense of traditional social norms and
values, of local customs and of societal evolution, rather than social upheaval, though
the distinction is not absolute. Often based upon religion, modern cultural
conservatives, in contrast to "small-government" conservatives and "states-rights"
advocates, increasingly turn to the federal government to overrule the states in order
to preserve educational and moral standards.
• Social conservatives emphasize traditional views of social units such as the family,
church, or locale. Social conservatives would typically define family in terms of local
histories and tastes. To the Protestant or Catholic…..

51. .
• Fiscal conservatism is the economic and political policy that advocates restraint of
governmental taxation and expenditures. Fiscal conservatives since the 19th century have argued
that debt is a device to corrupt politics; they argue that big spending ruins the morals of the
people, and that a national debt creates a dangerous class of speculators. The argument in favor
of balanced budgets is often coupled with a belief that government welfare programs should be
narrowly tailored and that tax rates should be low, which implies relatively small government
institutions.
• This belief in small government combines with fiscal conservatism to produce a broader economic
liberalism, which wishes to minimize government intervention in the economy. This amounts to
support for laissez-faire economics. This economic liberalism borrows from two schools of
thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical
liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are
the only ethical markets.
• The economic philosophy of conservatives in the United States tends to be more liberal allowing
for more economic freedom. Economic liberalism can go well beyond fiscal conservatism's
concern for fiscal prudence, to a belief or principle that it is not prudent for governments to
intervene in markets. It is also, sometimes, extended to a broader "small government" philosophy.
Economic liberalism is associated with free-market, or laissez-faire economics.
• Economic liberalism, insofar as it is ideological, owes its creation to the "classical liberal" tradition,
in the vein of Adam Smith, Friedrich A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises.
• Classical liberals and libertarians support free markets on moral, ideological grounds: principles of
individual liberty morally dictate support for free markets. Supporters of the moral grounds for free
markets include Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. The liberal tradition is suspicious of
government authority, and prefers individual choice, and hence tends to see capitalist economics
as the preferable means of achieving economic ends.
• Modern conservatives, on the other hand, derive support for free markets from practical grounds.
Free markets, they argue, are the most productive markets. Thus the modern conservative
supports free markets not out of necessity, but out of expedience. The support is not moral or
ideological, but driven on the Burkean notion of prescription: what works best is what is right.
• Another reason why conservatives support a smaller role for the government in the economy is
the belief in the importance of the civil society

52. .
• Western conservatism
• Historians use the word "conservative" to describe governments and leaders from the earliest
recorded times, but it was not until the Age of Enlightenment, and the reaction to events
surrounding the French Revolution of 1789, that modern conservatism rose as a distinct political
attitude or train of thought. Many point to the rise of a conservative disposition in the wake of the
Protestant Reformation, specifically to the works of influential Anglican theologian, Richard
Hooker, emphasizing moderation in the political balancing of interests towards the goals of social
harmony and common good. Edmund Burke's polemic Reflections on the Revolution in France
(1790) helped conservatism gain prominence. Edmund Burke opposed the French Revolution,
which he saw as violent and chaotic.
•
• Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821)
• He argued that some people have less reason than others, and thus some people will make better
governments than others if they rely upon reason. The proper formulation of government came not
from abstractions such as reason, but from time-honoured development of the state, piecemeal
progress through experience, and the continuation of other important societal institutions such as
the family and the church. Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of
time, while reason may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the
untested wisdom of one generation.
• Conservatives diverge from classical liberalism in the tradition of Adam Smith.[11] Some
conservatives look to a modified free market order, such as the American System, ordoliberalism,
or Friedrich List's National System. The latter view differs from strict laissez-faire, in that the
state's role is to promote competition while maintaining the national interest, community and
identity.
• Most conservatives strongly support the sovereign nation, and patriotically identify with their own
nation. Nationalist separatist movements may simultaneously be both radical and conservative
• Religious conservatives seek to apply the teachings of particular ideologies to politics

53. Idealism
• Woodrow Wilson
• Much of this writing has contrasted these idealist writers
with 'realists' in the tradition of E.H. Carr, whose The
Twenty Years' Crisis (1939) both coined the term
'idealist' and was a fierce and effective assault on the
inter-war idealists
• Since the 1980s, there has been growing study of the
major writers of this idealist tradition of thought in
international relations, including Sir Alfred Zimmernl,
John Maynard Keynes[3], John A. Hobson, Florence
Stawell (known as Melian Stawell), Philip Henry Kerr,
11th Marquess of Lothian, Arnold J. Toynbee, and
David Davies

54. .
• Idealism transcends the left-right political spectrum.
• Idealists can include both human rights campaigners (traditionally,
but not always, associated with the left) and American
neoconservatism which is usually associated with the right.
• Idealism may find itself in opposition to Realism, a worldview
which argues that a nation's national interest is more important
than ethical or moral considerations; however, there need be no
conflict between the two (see Neoconservatism for an example of a
confluence of the two).
• Realist thinkers include Hans Morgenthau, Niccolò Machiavelli,
Otto von Bismarck, George F. Kennan and others

55. .
• Descendant theories of Idealism:
• Idealism proper was a relatively short-lived
school of thought, and suffered a crisis of
confidence following the failure of the
League of Nations and the outbreak of
World War II.
• However, subsequent theories of
international relations would draw
elements from Wilsonian Idealism when
constructing their world views. (next slide)

56. .
• 1. Liberalism
• Main article: Liberal international relations theory
• Liberalism manifested a tempered version of Wilson's
idealism in the wake of World War I.
• Cognizant of the failures of Idealism to prevent renewed
isolationism following World War I, and its inability to
manage the balance of power in Europe to prevent the
outbreak of a new war, liberal thinkers devised a set of
international institutions based on rule of law and
regularized interaction.
• These international organizations, such as the United
Nations and the NATO, or even international regimes
such as the Bretton Woods system, and General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), were
calculated both to maintain a balance of power as well
as regularize cooperation between nations

57. .
• 2. Neoconservatism drew from Liberalism its intense
focus on the promotion of "universal values", in this case
democracy, human rights, free trade, women's rights and
minority protections.
• However, it differs in that it is less wedded to the
importance of preserving international institutions and
treaties while pursuing assertive or aggressive stances
which it deems morally worthy, and is willing to use force
or the threat of force, unilaterally if necessary, to push for
its goals

58. Realism
• Realism, also known as political realism
(not to be confused with Realpolitik), is a
school of international relations that
prioritizes national interest and security,
rather than ideals, social reconstructions,
or ethics.
• This term is often synonymous with power
politics

59. .
• Hans Joachim Morgenthau (February 17, 1904 – July 19, 1980)
was a German pioneer in the field of international relations theory,
lawman and political sciences theorician.
• He was born in a Jewish family in Coburg, Germany, and educated
at the universities of Berlin, Frankfurt and Munich.
• He taught and practiced law in Frankfurt before fleeing to the United
States in 1937, after several interim years in Switzerland and Spain,
as the Nazis came to power in Germany.
• His experiences with Nazism seem to have influenced his later work
in international relations theory, where he argued passionately in
favor of a more scientific approach to politics, in contrast with the
way the Nazi party came to imbue political science with a nationalist
streak.

60. .
• Morgenthau became a professor at the University of Chicago.
• Along with E.H. Carr, he is one of the main authors of the realist
school in the 20th century.
• This school of thought holds that nation-states are the main actors in
international relations, and that the main concern of the field is the
study of power.
• His book Politics Among Nations defined the field of international
relations theory in 1948 as it heralded the post–World War
II paradigm shift in American thinking about diplomacy.
• Politics Among Nations emphasized the power interests of states as
the driver behind the relations between states. The period before
WWII was on the other hand defined by idealism that focused on
values.

61. .
• Hans J. Morgenthau Hans
J. Morgenthau (1904-1979) was an
American political scientist who taught at
the University of Chicago and at the
Graduate.

62. .
• Principles of Morgenthau's Realism
•
• While 'realism' is used generically to refer to a closely associated,
and growing, body of work; it has taken various forms since
Thucydides' 'History of the Pelopponesian War'.[1]
• The realism developed by Morgenthau and his contemporary E H.
Carr is referred to however as Classical Realism, not to be mistaken
of course for its relative Neo-Realism.
• 1. Political realism believes that politics is governed by objective
laws with roots in human nature.
• 2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest
defined in terms of power which infuses rational order into the
subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical
understanding of politics possible.
• 3. Realism assumes that interest defined as power is an objective
category which is universally valid but not with a meaning that is
fixed once and for all. Power is the control of man over man.

63. .
• 4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is
also aware of the tension between the moral command and the
requirements of successful political action. Realism maintains that universal
moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract
universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete
circumstances of time and place.
• 5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular
nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. It is the concept of
interest defined in terms of power that saves us from moral excess and
political folly.
• 6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere; he
asks "How does this policy affect the power of the nation?" Political realism
is based on a pluralistic conception of human nature. A man who was
nothing but "political man" would be a beast, for he would be completely
lacking in moral restraints. But, in order to develop an autonomous theory of
political behaviour, "political man" must be abstracted from other aspects of
human nature.[2

64. .
• Quotations
• Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related
to: Hans Morgenthau
• "The statesman must think in terms of the
national interest, conceived as power among
other powers. The popular mind, unaware of the
fine distinctions of the statesman’s thinking,
reasons more often than not in the simple
moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good
and absolute evil."[3]

65. .
• Bibliography
• Scientific Man Versus Power Politics (1946) Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
• Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1948)
New York NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
• In Defense of the National Interest (1951) New York, NY: Alfred A.
Knopf.
• The Purpose of American Politics (1960) New York, NY: Alfred A.
Knopf.
• Crossroad Papers: A Look Into the American Future (ed.) (1965)
New York, NY: Norton.
• Truth and Power: Essays of a Decade, 1960-70 (1970) New York,
NY: Praeger.
• Coauthor with David Hein. Essays on Lincoln's Faith and Politics.
(1983) Lanham, MD:

66. Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war:
realism versus neo-conservatism
• The renowned American foreign-policy
realist Hans Morgenthau (1904-80)
opposed the Vietnam war. He would
have regarded the neo-conservatives’
adventure in Iraq as equally flawed,
says John J Mearsheimer.

67. .
• Hans Joachim Morgenthau was one of the most important political thinkers of the
20th century and one of the great realist thinkers of all time. Morgenthau, along with
almost all realists in the United States – except for Henry Kissinger – opposed the
Vietnam war. Their opposition came early, long before it became clear that the war
was a lost cause; in fact Morgenthau was warning against American military
involvement in Vietnam in the late 1950s.
• Equally, almost all realists in the United States – except for Henry Kissinger –
opposed the war against Iraq. Many supporters of that war are now having second
thoughts, since it is becoming increasingly clear that American troops are stuck in an
open-ended conflict from which there seems to be no exit. The realists, however,
anticipated big problems before the war began; in this, they have been proved largely
correct.
• Taken together, these facts raise the obvious question: would Hans Morgenthau, the
realist who opposed going to war in Vietnam, also have opposed the war on Iraq? We
can never know for sure and it would be foolish to say with total certainty that
Morgenthau would have opposed the Iraq war. Nevertheless, given his theory of
international politics, his opposition to the Vietnam war and the parallels between the
two conflicts, it is highly likely.

68. .
• This article is adapted from alecture given by John J Mearsheimer at the BMW
Stiftung Herbert Quandt in Munich on October 28-30 2004, commemorating the
centenary of Hans Joachim Morgenthau’s birth. The conference was entitled
“Hans J. Morgenthau – The Heritage, Challenge, and Future of Realism”
• For a short biography and summary of Hans Morgenthau's work, see the box at
the foot of this article
• The neo-conservative case: military power
• The dispute about whether to go to war in Iraq was between two competing theories
of international politics: realism and the neo-conservatism that underpins the Bush
doctrine. To understand the realist case against Iraq, it is necessary first to lay out the
neo-conservative strategy that the realists were challenging.
• Neo-conservative theory – the Bush doctrine – is essentially Wilsonianism with teeth.
The theory has an idealist strand and a power strand: Wilsonianism provides the
idealism, an emphasis on military power provides the teeth.
• Neo-conservatives correctly believe that the United States has a remarkably powerful
military. They believe that there has never been a state on earth that has as much
relative military power as the United States has today. And very importantly, they
believe that America can use its power to reshape the world to suit its interests. In
short, they believe in big-stick diplomacy, which is why the Bush doctrine privileges
military power over diplomacy.

69. .
• This belief in the utility of military force explains in large
part why the Bush administration and the neo-
conservatives favour unilateralism over multilateralism. If
the United States emphasised diplomacy over military
force, it could not act unilaterally very often, because
diplomacy by definition is very much a multilateral
enterprise.
• But if a state has awesome military power and can rely
heavily on that power to do business in the international
system, then it will not often need allies. Instead, it can
rely almost exclusively on its military might to achieve its
goals. In other words, it can act unilaterally, as the Bush
administration often did during its first term.

70. .
• The key to understanding why the neo-conservatives
think that military force is such a remarkably effective
instrument for running the world is that they believe that
international politics operate according to
“bandwagoning” logic. Specifically, they believe that if a
powerful country like the United States is willing to
threaten or attack its adversaries, then virtually all of the
states in the system – friends and foes alike – will quickly
understand that the United States means business and
that if they cross mighty Uncle Sam, they will pay a
severe price. In essence, the rest of the world will fear
the United States, which will cause any state that is even
thinking about challenging Washington to throw up its
hands and jump on the American bandwagon.

71. .
• Before the Iraq war, realists would say to the neo-conservatives that
if the United States threatens Iran and North Korea by putting them
on the “axis of evil” along with Iraq, it will drive them to redouble their
efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Neo-conservatives would say to
realists that Iran and North Korea will respond to the fall of Saddam
by understanding that they are numbers two and three on the hit list,
and will seek to avoid the same fate by surrendering. In short, they
will jump on the American bandwagon rather than risk death.
• Critics of the Iraq war would also say to the neo-conservatives that it
would make sense to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before
invading Iraq. Neo-conservatives would answer that an American
victory in Iraq would compel Yasser Arafat to sign a peace treaty
with Israel. The road to Jerusalem, they would argue, runs through
Baghdad. If the mighty United States got tough with troublemakers
in the Arab world, the Palestinians would read the writing on the
wall.

72. .
• Bandwagoning logic also underpinned the
famous “domino theory”, which was a critical
factor in the American decision to go to war in
Vietnam. According to the domino theory, if
Vietnam were to fall to communism, other
countries in southeast Asia would quickly follow,
and then countries in other regions would begin
to fall under the rule of the Soviet Union.
Eventually almost every state in the international
system would jump on the Soviet bandwagon,
leaving the United States alone and weak
against an unstoppable juggernaut.

73. .
• Some forty years later, the Bush administration thought that it could
turn the domino theory to its advantage. Knocking off Saddam, the
war party thought, would have a cascading effect in the middle east,
if not the wider world. The Iranians, the North Koreans, the
Palestinians, and the Syrians, after seeing the United States win a
stunning victory in Iraq, would all throw up their hands and dance to
Uncle Sam’s tune.
• The neo-conservatives’ faith in the efficacy of bandwagoning was
based in good part on their faith in the so-called revolution in military
affairs (RMA). In particular, they believed that the United States
could rely on stealth technology, air-delivered precision-guided
weapons, and small but highly mobile ground forces to win quick
and decisive victories. They believed that the RMA gave the Bush
administration a nimble military instrument which, to put it in
Muhammad Ali’s terminology, could “float like a butterfly and sting
like a bee.”

74. .
• The American military, in their view, would swoop down out of the sky, finish off a
regime, pull back and reload the shotgun for the next target. There might be a need
for US ground troops in some cases, but that force would be small in number. The
Bush doctrine did not call for a large army. Indeed, heavy reliance on a big army was
antithetical to the strategy, because it would rob the military of the nimbleness and
flexibility essential to make the strategy work.
• This bias against big battalions explains why deputy secretary of defense Paul
Wolfowitz (a prominent neo-conservative) and secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld
dismissed out of hand (the then US army chief of staff) General Eric Shinsheki’s
comment that the United States would need “several hundred thousand troops” to
occupy Iraq. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz understood that if the American military had to
deploy huge numbers of troops in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, it would be pinned
down, unable to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. A large-scale occupation of
Iraq would undermine the Bush administration’s plan to rely on the RMA to win quick
and decisive victories.
• In sum, the RMA was supposed to make bandwagoning work, which, in turn, would
make big-stick diplomacy work, which, in turn, would make a unilateralist foreign
policy feasible.

75. .
• The neo-conservative case: Wilsonian idealism
• The idealist or Wilsonian strand of the neo-conservatives’ theory of international
politics focuses on promoting democracy, which they believe is the most powerful
political ideology on the face of the earth. Moreover, they believe that the world
divides into good states and bad states, and that the democracies are the white hats.
• Democracies have benign motives and are naturally inclined to act peacefully toward
other states. Democracies only act in a bellicose fashion when the black hats,
invariably non-democratic states, leave them no choice. Of course, they believe in
democratic peace theory, which says that democracies hardly ever fight each other.
Thus, if the United States could help create a world populated exclusively with
democracies, there would be no war and we would have reached what Francis
Fukuyama famously called “the end of history”. If every state in the system looked
like democratic America, which is obviously a virtuous state, we would live in a world
of all white hats and no black hats, which, by definition, would be a peaceful world.
• Fukuyama thought we had reached the end of history in 1989 with the end of the cold
war, and that boredom would be the main problem in the decades ahead. But 9/11
made it clear that the west was not going to be bored for the foreseeable future,
because it faces a major-league terrorist threat emanating from the Arab and Islamic
world, especially the middle east. The neo-conservatives reacted to this problem by
arguing that the root of the problem was the almost complete absence of democracy
in the middle east.

76. .
• dward Hallett Carr CBE (28 June 1892 – 3
November 1982) was a liberal realist and later left-
wing[1] British historian, journalist andinternational relations theorist,
and an opponent of empiricism within historiography.
• Carr was best known for his 14-volume history of the Soviet Union,
in which he provided an account of Soviet history from 1917 to 1929,
for his writings on international relations, and for his book What Is
History?, in which he laid out historiographical principles rejecting
traditional historical methods and practices.
• Educated at Cambridge, Carr began his career as a diplomat in
1916. Becoming increasingly preoccupied with the study of
international relations and of the Soviet Union, he resigned from the
Foreign Office in 1936 to begin an academic career. From 1941 to
1946, Carr worked as an assistant editor at The Times, where he
was noted for his leaders (editorials) urging a socialist system and
an Anglo-Soviet alliance as the basis of a post-war order.
Afterwards, Carr worked on a massive 14-volume work on Soviet
history entitled A History of Soviet Russia, a project that he was still
engaged on at the time of his death in 1982. In 1961, he delivered
the G. M. Trevelyan lectures at the University of Cambridgethat
became the basis of his book, What is History?. Moving increasing
towards the left throughout his career, Carr saw his role as the
theorist who would work out the basis of a new international order.

77. .
• Contribution to the theory of International relations
• Carr contributed to the foundation of what is now known as classical
realism in International relations theory.
• Through study of history (work of Thucydides and Machiavelli) and
reflection and deep epistemological disagreement with Idealism, the
dominant International relations theory between the World Wars, he came
up with realism.
• In his book The Twenty Years' Crisis, Carr defined three dichotomies of
realism and utopianism (Idealism), derived from Machiavellian realism:
– In the first place, history is a sequence of cause and effect, whose course can be
analysed and understood by intellectual effort, but not (as the utopians believe)
directed by " imagination ". Secondly; theory does not (as the utopians assume)
create practice, but practice theory. In Machiavelli's words, " good counsels,
whence so ever they come, are born of the wisdom of the prince, and not the
wisdom of the prince from good counsels ". Thirdly, politics are not (as the
utopians pretend) a function of ethics, but ethics of politics. Men " are kept
honest by constraint ". Machiavelli recognised the importance of morality, but
thought that there could be no effective morality where there was no effective
authority. Morality is the product of power. [Carr, 1939]

78. .
• [edit]Carr's distinctions of Realism and Utopianism
• In the second part of the book The Twenty Years' Crisis, Carr defined six
distinctions between Realism and Utopianism. The first being two schematic
descriptions of idealism and realism (utopia and reality). The utopian
believes in the possibility of transforming society by an act of will. The main
problem of the utopian is his/her lack of information regarding the
constraints that the reality poses upon us. Not regarding these constraints
seriously, the utopian cannot assess his/her current position and thus is
unable to move from the actual state of affairs to his/her desire. A Utopian
may want a world in peace, but have no viable plan of action to bring peace
on Earth, only the belief that it should be so and the conviction that such a
belief will bring peace into being.
• On the other hand, the realists take the society we live in as a historical
consequence. The social reality is the product of a long chain of causality, a
predetermined result. Thus, it cannot be changed by an act of will. The
realist, taking things as they are, deprives him/herself from the possibility of
changing the world.

79. .
• he second distinction is that between theory and practice. For the utopian,
we derive the answer to "what should be done?" from theory. The all
important question is to be able to conceive of a utopia. Once the target is
constructed in mind, all we have to do is to get there. Thus, utopian
confuses what "is" and what "ought to be". When a utopian says "men are
equal", he actually means "men ought to be equal". The difference is crucial
and confusing in actual politics. For the realist, theory is derived from reality,
the actual state of affairs. While the utopian tries to reproduce reality with
reference to theory, the realist tries to produce theory from reality. Thus, for
a realist, a theory based on the equality of men is simply wrong or wishful
thinking. The realist theory is descriptive, and you cannot derive policy from
that theory; it is not prescriptive.
• For Carr, one has to see the interdependence of the two. Most of our reality
is the product of some ideas that took shape in the form of institutions or
applied rules. Every theory carries in it a part of reality and vice versa. The
problems we face in reality forces us to think and imagine new ways of
reality. The theory (solution) we produce changes reality and becomes part
of reality. When that reality creates new problems, we come up with further
theory to solve them and it goes on like this. That is a circle of causality.

80. .
• The third distinction is that between the intellectual who derives the truth
from books and the bureaucrat who derives it from actual experience. The
intellectual believes in the predominance of theory and thus thinks of
himself as the true guide of the so-called man of action. The bureaucrat is
bound up with the existing order. He has no formula or theory that guides
him. He merely tries to make the existing order within which he exists,
continue to exist.
• The fourth distinction is that between left and right. The left is progressive in
the utopian sense while the right is conservative in the realist sense.
• The fifth is between radical and conservative (left and right, though Carr
notes, that not always radicals and conservatives represent those political
orientation). Radicals are utopians, intellectuals, theoretician, while
conservatives are realists, bureaucrats and people from practice.
• Finally, the same distinction appears between ethics and politics. The
utopian believes in the predominance of ethics as a guide to policy. The
realist believes that ethics is derived from the relations of power as they
stand. Thus, politics pre-dominates. For Carr, the ability to see from both
angles is the right way to go about.

81. .
• Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June
1527) was an Italian philosopher/writer, and is considered one of the
main founders of modern political science.[1] He was
a diplomat, political philosopher, musician, and a playwright, but
foremost, he was a civil servant of the Florentine Republic.
• In June of 1498, after the ouster and execution of Girolamo
Savonarola, the Great Council elected Machiavelli as Secretary to
the second Chancery of the Republic of Florence.[2]
• Like Leonardo da Vinci, Machiavelli is considered a good example
of the Renaissance Man.
• He is most famous for a short political treatise, The Prince, written
in 1513, but not published until 1532, five years after Machiavelli's
death. Although he privately circulated The Prince among friends,
the only work he published in his lifetime was The Art of War, about
high-military science.
• Since the sixteenth century, generations of politicians remain
attracted and repelled by the cynical approach to power posited
in The Prince and his other works.[3]
• Whatever his personal intentions, which are still debated today, his
surname yielded the modern political word Machiavellianism—the
use of cunning and deceitful tactics in politics.

82. .
• All cities that ever, at any time, have been ruled
by an absolute prince, by aristocrats, or by the
people, have had for their protection force
combined with prudence, because the latter is
not enough alone, and the first either does not
produce things, or when they are produced,
does not maintain them.
• Force and prudence, then, are the might of all
the governments that ever have been or will be
in the world.

83. ssssssssss
• 1 : of or relating to Machiavelli or
Machiavellianism
2 : suggesting the principles of conduct
laid down
by Machiavelli; specifically : marked by
cunning, duplicity, or bad faith

84. .
• The Prince
• [edit]Realism
• The Prince's contribution to the history of political thought is the
fundamental break between political Realism and political Idealism. Niccolò
Machiavelli’s best-known book exposits and describes the arts with which a
ruling prince can maintain control of his realm. It concentrates on the "new
prince", under the presumption that a hereditary prince has an easier task in
ruling, since the people are accustomed to him. To retain power, the
hereditary prince must carefully maintain the socio-political institutions to
which the people are accustomed; whereas a new prince has the more
difficult task in ruling, since he must first stabilize his new-found power in
order to build an enduring political structure. That requires the prince being
a public figure above reproach, whilst privately acting amorally to achieve
State goals. The examples are those princes who most successfully obtain
and maintain power, drawn from his observations as a Florentine diplomat,
and his ancient history readings; thus, the Latin phrases and Classic
examples.

85. .
• The Prince does not dismiss morality, instead, it
politically defines “Morality”—as in the criteria for acceptable cruel
action—it must be decisive: swift, effective, and short-lived.
Machiavelli is aware of the irony of good results coming from evil
actions; notwithstanding some mitigating themes, the Catholic
Church proscribed The Prince, registering it to the Index Librorum
Prohibitorum, moreover, the Humanists also viewed the book
negatively, among them, Erasmus of Rotterdam. As a treatise, its
primary intellectual contribution to the history of political thought is
thefundamental break between political Realism and
political Idealism—thus, The Prince is a manual to acquiring and
keeping political power. In contrast with Plato and Aristotle, a
Classical ideal society is not the aim of the prince’s will to power. As
a political scientist, Machiavelli emphasises necessary, methodical
exercise of brute force punishment-and-reward
(patronage, clientelism, et cetera) to preserve the status quo.

86. .
• Satire?
• As there seems to be a very large difference between Machiavelli's advice
to ruthless and tyrannical princes in The Prince and his more republican
exhortations in Discorsi, many have concluded that The Prince is actually
only a satire. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for instance, admired Machiavelli
the republican and consequently argued that The Prince is a book for the
republicans as it exposes the methods used by princes. If the book were
only intended as a manual for tyrannical rulers, it contains a paradox: it
would apparently be more effective if the secrets it contains would not be
made publicly available. Likewise, Antonio Gramsci argued that
Machiavelli's audience for this work is the common people because the
rulers already knew these methods through their education. This
interpretation is supported by the fact that Machiavelli wrote in Italian, not in
Latin (which would have been the language of the ruling elite). Although
Machiavelli is supposed to be a realist, many of his heroes in The
Prince are in fact mythical or semi-mythical, and his goal (i.e. the unification
of Italy) was essentially utopian at the time of writing

87. .
• "Machiavellian"
• Sixteenth-century contemporaries adopted and used the
adjective Machiavellian (in the sense of devious cunning), often in
the introductions of political tracts offering more than government by
“Reasons of State”, most notably those of Jean Bodin and Giovanni
Botero. Contemporary, pejorative usage of Machiavellian (or anti-
Machiavellism in the 16th C.) is a misnomer describing someone
who deceives and manipulates others for gain; (personal or not, the
gain is immaterial, only action matters, insofar as it affects
results). The Prince does not have the moderating themes of his
other works; politically, “Machiavelli” denotes someone of politically-
extreme perspective;[8] however Machiavellianism remains a
popular speech and journalism usage; while in psychology, it
denotes a personality type.

88. .
• Discorsi
• Main article: Discourses on Livy
•
•
• Sebastiano del Piombo,1516,"Cardinal Bandinello Sauli, His Secretary, and Two Geographers." Which is often
mistaken for Machiavelli (center right) depicted: (left-right) Cesare Borgia, Pedro Luis de Borja Lanzol de Romaní,
and Don Micheletto Corella
• The Discourse on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy comprises the early history of Rome. It is a series of lessons
on how a republic should be started and structured, including the concept of checks and balances, the strength of
a tri-partite political structure, and the superiority of arepublic over a principality.
• From The Discourses:
• “In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince, a nobility, and the power of the people, then
these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check”. Book I, Chapter II
• “Doubtless these means [of attaining power] are cruel and destructive of all civilized life, and neither Christian, nor
even human, and should be avoided by every one. In fact, the life of a private citizen would be preferable to that of
a king at the expense of the ruin of so many human beings”. Book I, Chapter XXVI
• “Now, in a well-ordered republic, it should never be necessary to resort to extra-constitutional measures. . . . ”
Book I, Chapter XXXIV
• “. . . the governments of the people are better than those of princes”. Book I, Chapter LVIII
• “. . . if we compare the faults of a people with those of princes, as well as their respective good qualities, we shall
find the people vastly superior in all that is good and glorious”. Book I, Chapter LVIII
• “For government consists mainly in so keeping your subjects that they shall be neither able, nor disposed to injure
you. . . . ” Book II, Chapter XXIII
• “. . . no prince is ever benefited by making himself hated”. Book III, Chapter XIX
• “Let not princes complain of the faults committed by the people subjected to their authority, for they result entirely
from their own negligence or bad example”. Book III, Chapter XXIX [9]

89. .
• Revival of interest in the 19th and 20th centuries
• Despite remaining a politically influential writer in the 17th and 18th
centuries, it was the 19th and 20th centuries that rediscovered his political
science for its intellectual and practical applications. The most reliable guide
to this renewed interest is the Introduction to the 1953 (Mentor Books)
edition of Il Principe, wherein Christian Gauss, the Dean of Princeton
University, discusses, with pertinent historical context, the commentaries
on The Prince made by the German historians Ranke (19th c.) and Meineke
(20th c.), the Briton Lord Acton, and others. Citing the consensus that
Machiavelli was the first political theorist with a practical, scientific approach
to statecraft, considering him “the first Modern Man”. The commentators
view the political scientist Machiavelli positively—because he viewed the
world realistically, thus, such statecraft leads to (generally) constructive
results.
• In the 20th century there was also renewed interest in Machiavelli's La
Mandragola (1518), which received numerous stagings, including several in
New York, at the New York Shakespeare Festival in 1976 and the Riverside
Shakespeare Company in 1979, and at London's National Theatre in 1984.[

90. .
• Contributions to Political Philosophy
• Machiavelli was in many respects not an innovator. His largest political work seeks to bring back a rebirth of the Ancient Roman Republic;
its values, virtues and principles the ultimate guiding authority of his political vision. Machiavelli is essentially a restorer of something old
and forgotten. The republicanism he focused on, especially the theme of civic virtue, became one of the dominant political themes of the
modern world, and was a central part of the foundation of American political values.
• Machiavelli studied the way people lived and aimed to inform leaders how they should rule and even how they themselves shouldlive. To
an extent he admits that the old tradition was true - men are obliged to live virtuously as according to Aristotles Virtue Ethics principle.
However, he denies that living virtuously necessarily leads to happiness. Machiavelli viewed misery asone of the vices that enables a
prince to rule [11] Machiavelli states boldly in The Prince, The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But
since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. [12] In much
of Machiavelli's work, it seems that the ruler must adopt unsavory policies for the sake of the continuance of his regime.
• Hans Baron was the most influential scholar to study Machiavelli. Najemy (1996) examines Baron's ambivalent portrayal, arguing that
Baron tended to see Machiavelli simultaneously as the cynical debunker and the faithful heir of civic humanism. By the mid-1950s, Baron
had come to consider civic humanism and Florentine republicanism as early chapters of a much longer history of European political
liberty, a story in which Machiavelli and his generation played a crucial role. This conclusion led Baron to modify his earlier negative view
of Machiavelli. He tried to bring the Florentine theorist under the umbrella of civic humanism by underscoring the radical differences
between The Prince and the Discourses and thus revealing the fundamentally republican character of the Discourses. However, Baron's
inability to come to terms with Machiavelli's harsh criticism of early 15th-century commentators such as Leonardo Bruni ultimately
prevented him from fully reconciling Machiavelli with civic humanism.
• Pocock (1981) traces the Machiavellian belief in and emphasis upon Greco-Roman ideals of unspecialized civic virtue and liberty from
15th-century Florence through 17th-century England and Scotland to 18th-century America. Thinkers who shared these ideals tended to
believe that the function of property was to maintain an individual's independence as a precondition of his virtue. Consequently, in the last
two times and places mentioned above, they were disposed to attack the new commercial and financial regime that was beginning to
develop. However, Paul Rahe (1992) takes issue with Pocock on the origins and argues Machiavelli's republicanism was not rooted in
antiquity but was is entirely novel and modern. Scholars have argued thatJames Madison followed Machiavelli's republicanism when he
(and Jefferson) set up the Democratic-Republican Party in the 1790s to oppose what they saw as the emerging aristocracy that they
feared Alexander Hamilton was creating with the Federalist Party.[13] Conservative historians likewise conclude that Thomas Jefferson's
republicanism was "deeply in debt" to Machiavelli, whom he praised.[14]
• The 20th century Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci drew great inspiration from Machiavelli's writings on ethics, morals, and how they
relate to the State and revolution in his writings onPassive Revolution, and how a society can be manipulated by controling popular
notions of morality

91. .
• Realist or evil?
• For four centuries scholars have debated whether Machiavelli was the
theorist of evil or just being realistic. The Prince made the word
"Machiavellian" a byword for deceit, despotism, and political manipulation.
Some historians argue Machiavelli had a secret (or very subtle) message
that explains away the ugly implications of the plain text, saying that
Machiavelli really favored virtue after all and was just trying to trick princes
into policies that would lead to their overthrow, not their triumph.[16]
• Leo Strauss, the American political philosopher, declared himself more
inclined toward the traditional view that Machiavelli was a "teacher of evil,"
since he counsels the princes to avoid the values of justice, mercy,
temperance, wisdom, and love of their people in preference to the use of
cruelty, violence, fear, and deception.[17] Italian anti-fascist
philosopher Benedetto Croce(1925) concludes Machiavelli is simply a
"realist" or "pragmatist" who accurately states that moral values in reality do
not greatly affect the decisions that political leaders make.[18]German
philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1946) held that Machiavelli simply adopts the
stance of a political scientist—a Galileo of politics—in distinguishing
between the "facts" of political life and the "values" of moral judgment.

92. .
• Thoughts on the State
• Machiavelli was not a political philosopher in the ordinary sense. He did not try either to define the State or to
justify its existence. His views about the State are implied as matter of course when he describes how a ruler may
retain or acquire control, how he is liable to lose it, which qualities are necessary for a republic to remain strong, or
how precarious a Republic’s liberty can be at times. Medieval thinkers had taken the political authority of any
prince or king in the community of Christendom to be necessarily limited – by the Emperor (In the case of theHoly
Roman Empire), by the power of the Roman Catholic Church in spiritual matters and by the power of natural law
(Universal moral principles) that determine the boundaries of justice. Machiavelli did not challenge this long held
traditional position. He ignored it, writing as a matter of fact that the state had absolute authority. He thought that
the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order and the rules of morality must be dispensed with if
security required it.
• Machiavelli further differed from medieval thinkers in taking for granted that the power of the state is a single whole
and can be centrally controlled, irrespective of whether the state is a monarchy or a republic. He preferred a
republic because he preferred liberty. However, he believed that in order for the liberty of republicanism to
function, it needed a citizenry who were independent and courageous (Virtuous). Machiavelli believed these
qualities were rare and existed hardly anywhere in the Europe of his day since the Romans.
• [edit]Impact on America
• The Founding Fathers read Machiavelli closely. In his Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United
States, John Adams praised Machiavelli, with Algernon Sidney andMontesquieu, as a philosophic defender of
mixed government. For Adams, Machiavelli restored empirical reason to politics, while his analysis of factions was
commendable. Adams likewise agreed with the Florentine that human nature was immutable and driven by
passions. He also accepted Machiavelli's belief that all societies were subject to cyclical periods of growth and
decay. For Adams, Machiavelli lacked only a clear understanding of the institutions necessary for good
government.[20]

93. .
• hānakya (Sanskrit: चाणक्य Cāṇakya) (c. 350–283 BCE) was an
adviser and prime minister[1] to the
first Maurya Emperor Chandragupta (c. 340-293 BCE), and was the
chief architect of his rise to power. Kautilya and Vishnugupta, the
names by which the ancient Indian political treatise called
the Arthaśāstra identifies its author, are traditionally identified with
Chanakya.[2] Chanakya has been considered as the pioneer of
the field of economics and political science, having first written about
the subject a millennium and a half before Ibn
Khaldun'sMuqaddimah.[3][4][5][6] In the Western world, he has
been referred to as The Indian Machiavelli, although Chanakya's
works predate Machiavelli's by about 1,800 years.[7] Chanakya was
a teacher in Takṣaśila, an ancient centre of learning, and was
responsible for the creation of Mauryan empire, the first of its kind
on the Indian subcontinen

94. /
• Ibn Khaldūn or Ibn Khaldoun (full name, Arabic: ‫بن‬ ‫محمد‬ ‫بن‬ ‫الرحمن‬ ‫عبد‬ ‫زيد‬ ‫أبو‬
‫الحضرمي‬ ‫خلدون‬ , Abū Zayd ‘Abdu r-Raḥman bin Muḥammad bin Khaldūn
Al-Hadrami, (May 27, 1332 AD/732 AH – March 19, 1406 AD/808 AH) was
an Arab polymath[1][2] — an astronomer, economist,historian, Islamic
jurist, Islamic lawyer, Islamic scholar, Islamic
theologian, hafiz, mathematician, military
strategist, nutritionist, philosopher,social scientist and statesman—born
in North Africa in present-day Tunisia.[3] He is considered a forerunner of
several social scientific disciplines: demography,[4] cultural
history,[5][6] historiography,[7][8][9] the philosophy of
history,[10] and sociology.[4][8][9][10][11][12] He is also considered one of
the forerunners of modern economics,[8][13][14] alongside the
earlier Indian scholar Chanakya.[15][16][17][18] Ibn Khaldun is considered
by many to be the father of a number of these disciplines, and of social
sciences in general,[19][20] for anticipating many elements of these
disciplines centuries before they were founded in the West. He is best
known for his Muqaddimah (known as Prolegomenon in English), the first
volume of his book on universal history

95. .
• Concerning the discipline of sociology, he conceived a theory of social conflict. He developed the dichotomy of
sedentary life versus nomadic life as well as the concept of a "generation," and the inevitable loss of power that
occurs when desert warriors conquer a city. Following a contemporary Arab scholar, Sati' al-Husri, the
Muqaddimah may be read as a sociological work: six books of general sociology. Topics dealt with in this work
include politics, urban life, economics, and knowledge. The work is based around Ibn Khaldun's central concept of
'asabiyyah, which has been translated as "social cohesion", "group solidarity", or "tribalism." This social cohesion
arises spontaneously in tribes and other small kinship groups; it can be intensified and enlarged by a religious
ideology. Ibn Khaldun's analysis looks at how this cohesion carries groups to power but contains within itself the
seeds - psychological, sociological, economic, political - of the group's downfall, to be replaced by a new group,
dynasty or empire bound by a stronger (or at least younger and more vigorous) cohesion. Ibn Khaldun has been
cited as a racist, but his theories on the rise and fall of empires had no racial component, and this reading of his
work has been claimed to be the result of mistranslations.[29]
• Perhaps the most frequently cited observation drawn from Ibn Khaldūn's work is the notion that when a society
becomes a great civilization (and, presumably, the dominant culture in its region), its high point is followed by a
period of decay. This means that the next cohesive group that conquers the diminished civilization is, by
comparison, a group of barbarians. Once the barbarians solidify their control over the conquered society, however,
they become attracted to its more refined aspects, such as literacy and arts, and either assimilate into or
appropriate such cultural practices. Then, eventually, the former barbarians will be conquered by a new set of
barbarians, who will repeat the process. Some contemporary readers of Khaldun have read this as an
early business cycle theory, though set in the historical circumstances of the mature Islamic empire.
• Some readings posit an anticipation of Marx's labour theory of value in Ibn Khaldun's work. Ibn Khaldun asserts
that all value (profit) comes from labour, as Marx was later to write. He outlines an early (possibly even the
earliest) example of political economy. He describes the economy as being composed of value-adding processes;
that is, labour is added to techniques and crafts and the product is sold at a higher value. He also made the
distinction between "profit" and "sustenance", in modern political economy terms, surplus and that required for the
reproduction of classes respectively. He also calls for the creation of a science to explain society and goes on to
outline these ideas in his major work the Muqaddimah.

96. .
• When civilization [population] increases, the available
labor again increases. In turn, luxury again increases in
correspondence with the increasing profit, and the
customs and needs of luxury increase. Crafts are
created to obtain luxury products. The value realized
from them increases, and, as a result, profits are again
multiplied in the town. Production there is thriving even
more than before. And so it goes with the second and
third increase. All the additional labor serves luxury and
wealth, in contrast to the original labor that served the
necessity of life.[26]Ibn Khaldun on economic
growthBusinesses owned by responsible and organized
merchants shall eventually surpass those owned by
wealthy rulers.[27]Ibn Khaldun on economic
growth and the ideals ofPlato

97. .
• Immanuel Kant (German pronunciation: [ɪˈmanuɛl kant]) (22 April 1724 –
12 February 1804) was an 18th-century German philosopher from
the Prussian city of Königsberg. Kant was the last influential philosopher of
modern Europe in the classic sequence of the theory of knowledge during
theEnlightenment beginning with thinkers John Locke, George Berkeley,
and David Hume.[1]
• Kant created a new perspective in philosophy which had widespread
influences on philosophy continuing through to the 21st century. He
published important works on epistemology, as well as works relevant to
religion, law, and history. One of his most prominent works is the Critique of
Pure Reason, an investigation into the limitations and structure of reason
itself. It encompasses an attack on
traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own
contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are
the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates onethics, and
the Critique of Judgment, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.

98. .
• Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed through epistemology.[2] He suggested that by
understanding the sources and limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical
questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience
of that object. He concluded that all objects about which the mind can think must conform to its
manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality – which he concluded
that it does – then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must
either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it is possible that there are objects
of such nature which the mind cannot think, and so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot
be applied outside of experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always
existed or if it had a cause. And so the grand questions of speculative metaphysics cannot be
answered by the human mind, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind.[3]
• Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists.
The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired through experience alone, but the rationalists
maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us
with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will
only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed
under pure reason.
• Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the
debate between the rationalists and empiricists. The
philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel andSchopenhauer each saw themselves as correcting and
expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about various forms of German idealism. Kant
continues to be a major influence on philosophy, influencing both analytic and continental
philosophy.

99. .
• Idea of God
• Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the
slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…",[48] but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from
the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world,
and "is necessary from the practical point of view";[49] compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[50] In
the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom,
because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of
this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93,
trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91).
• Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or
naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major
in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include
supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural
morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the
supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.
• Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he
sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical
church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle
of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the
possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have
provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh
1967).[51]
• [edit]Idea of freedom
• In the Critique of Pure Reason,[52] Kant distinguishes between the transcendental idea of freedom, which as a psychological concept is
"mainly empirical" and refers to "the question whether we must admit a power of spontaneously beginning a series of successive things or
states" as a real ground of necessity in regard to causality,[53] and the practical concept of freedom as the independence of our will from
the "coercion" or "necessitation through sensuous impulses." Kant finds it a source of difficulty that the practical concept of freedom is
founded on the transcendental idea of freedom,[54] but for the sake of practical interests uses the practical meaning, taking "no account
of… its transcendental meaning", which he feels was properly "disposed of" in the Third Antinomy, and as an element in the question of
the freedom of the will is for philosophy "a real stumbling-block" that has "embarrassed speculative reason".[53]
• Kant calls practical "everything that is possible through freedom", and the pure practical laws that are never given through sensuous
conditions but are held analogously with the universal law of causality are moral laws. Reason can give us only the "pragmatic laws of
free action through the senses", but pure practical laws given by reason a priori[55] dictate "what ought to be done"

100. .
• Political philosophy
• Main article: Political philosophy of Immanuel Kant
• In Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch[65] Kant listed several
conditions that he thought necessary for ending wars and creating a
lasting peace. They included a world of constitutional
republics.[66] His classical republican theory was extended in the
first part of Metaphysics of Morals- published separately earlier in
1790 as Science of Right.[67]
• He opposed "democracy," which at his time meant direct
democracy, believing that majority rule posed a threat to individual
liberty. He stated, "…democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a
despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which 'all'
decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, 'all,' who
are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will
with itself and with freedom."[68] As most writers at the time he
distinguished three forms of government i.e. democracy, aristocracy,
and monarchy with mixed government as the most ideal form of it.

101. .
• nfluence
•
•
• Statue of Immanuel Kant in Kaliningrad (Königsberg), Russia
• The vastness of Kant's influence on Western thought is immeasurable.[70] Over and above his specific influence
on specific thinkers, Kant changed the framework within which philosophical inquiry has been carried out from his
day through the present in ways that have been irreversible. In other words, he accomplished a paradigm shift:
very little philosophy since Kant has been carried out as an extension of pre-Kantian philosophy or in the mode of
thought and discourse of pre-Kantian philosophy. This shift consists in several closely related innovations that
have become axiomatic to post-Kantian thought, both in philosophy itself and in the social sciences and
humanities generally:
• Kant's "Copernican revolution", that placed the role of the human subject or knower at the center of inquiry into our
knowledge, such that it is impossible to philosophize about things as they are independently of us or of how they
are for us;[71]
• his invention of critical philosophy, that is of the notion of being able to discover and systematically explore
possible inherent limits to our ability to know through philosophical reasoning;
• his creation of the concept of "conditions of possibility", as in his notion of "the conditions of possible experience" –
that is that things, knowledge, and forms of consciousness rest on prior conditions that make them possible, so
that to understand or know them we have to first understand these conditions;
• his theory that objective experience is actively constituted or constructed by the functioning of the human mind;
• his notion of moral autonomy as central to humanity;
• his assertion of the principle that human beings should be treated as ends rather than as means.

102. .
• Some or all of these Kantian ideas can be seen in schools of thought as different from one another as German
Idealism, Marxism, positivism,phenomenology, existentialism, critical theory, linguistic
philosophy, structuralism, post-structuralism, and deconstructionism. Kant's influence also has extended to the
social and behavioral sciences, as in the sociology of Max Weber, the psychology of Jean Piaget, and the
linguistics ofNoam Chomsky. Because of the thoroughness of the Kantian paradigm shift, his influence extends
even to thinkers who do not specifically refer to his work or use his terminology.
• During his own life, there was a considerable amount of attention paid to his thought, much of it critical, though he
did have a positive influence onReinhold, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Novalis during the 1780s and 1790s. The
philosophical movement known as German Idealism developed from Kant's theoretical and practical writings. The
German Idealists Fichte and Schelling, for example, attempted to bring traditionally "metaphysically" laden notions
like "the Absolute," "God," or "Being" into the scope of Kant's critical philosophy.[72] In so doing, the German
Idealists attempted to reverse Kant's establishment of the unknowableness of unexperiencable ideas.
• Hegel was one of the first major critics of Kant's philosophy. Hegel thought Kant's moral philosophy was too
formal, abstract and ahistorical. In response to Kant's abstract and formal account of morality, Hegel developed an
ethics that considered the "ethical life" of the community.[73] But Hegel's notion of "ethical life" is meant to
subsume, rather than replace, Kantian "morality." And Hegel's philosophical work as a whole can be understood
as attempting to defend Kant's conception of freedom as going beyond finite "inclinations," by means of reason.
Thus, in contrast to later critics like Friedrich Nietzsche or Bertrand Russell, Hegel shares some of Kant's most
basic concerns.[74]
• Many British Roman Catholic writers, notably G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, seized on Kant and promoted
his work, with a view to restoring the philosophical legitimacy of a belief in God. Reaction against this, and an
attack on Kant's use of language, is found in Ronald Englefield's article, Kant as Defender of the Faith in
Nineteenth-century England[75], reprinted in Critique of Pure Verbiage, Essays on Abuses of Language in Literary,
Religious, and Philosophical Writings.[76] These criticisms of Kant were common in the anti-idealistic arguments
of the logical positivismschool and its admirers.
• Arthur Schopenhauer was strongly influenced by Kant's transcendental idealism.

103. .
• With his Perpetual Peace, Kant is
considered to have foreshadowed many of
the ideas that have come to form
the democratic peace theory, one of the
main controversies in political science.

104. .
• Thomas Hobbes (5 April 1588 – 4
December 1679), in some older
texts Thomas Hobbs of
Malmsbury,[1] was
an English philosopher, remembered
today for his work on political philosophy.
His 1651 book Leviathan established the
foundation for most of Western political
philosophy from the perspective of social
contract theory

105. .
• Leviathan
• Main article: Leviathan (book)
•
•
• Frontispiece of Leviathan
• In Leviathan, Hobbes set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and legitimate governments - based on social
contract theories. Leviathanwas written during the English Civil War; much of the book is occupied with
demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war.
• Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and the passions, Hobbes postulates what life
would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would
have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This inevitably leads to conflict, a "war of all against all" (bellum
omnium contra omnes), and thus lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (xiii).
• To escape this state of war, men in the state of nature accede to a social contract and establish a civil society.
According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society
cede their natural rights for the sake of protection. Any abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted as the
price of peace. However, he also states that in severe cases of abuse, rebellion is expected. In particular, the
doctrine of separation of powers is rejected:[12] the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial and ecclesiastical
powers.
• Leviathan was also well-known for its radical religious views, which were often Hobbes's attempt to reinterpret
scripture from his materialist assumptions. His denial of incorporeal entities led him to write, for example,
that Heaven and Hell were places on Earth, and to take other positions out of sync with church teachings of his
time. Much has been made of his religious views by scholars such as Richard Tuck and J. G. A. Pocock, but there
is still widespread disagreement about the significance of Leviathan's contents concerning religion. Many have
taken the work to mean that Hobbes was an atheist, while others find the evidence for this position insufficient.

106. .
• Hobbes published, in 1658, the final section of his
philosophical system, completing the scheme he had
planned more than twenty years before. De
Homine consisted for the most part of an elaborate
theory of vision. The remainder of the treatise dealt
cursorily with some of the topics more fully treated in
the Human Nature and the Leviathan. In addition to
publishing some controversial writings on mathematics
and physics, Hobbes also continued to produce
philosophical works. From the time of the Restoration he
acquired a new prominence; "Hobbism" became a
fashionable creed which it was the duty of "every lover of
true morality and religion" to denounce

107. .
• Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de
Montesquieu (English pronunciation: /ˈmɒntɨskjuː/; 18
January 1689, La Brède,Gironde – 10 February 1755),
was a French social commentator and political
thinker who lived during the Era of the Enlightenment.
He is famous for his articulation of the theory
of separation of powers, taken for granted in modern
discussions of government and implemented in
many constitutions throughout the world. He was largely
responsible for the popularization of the
terms feudalism and Byzantine Empir

108. .
• Montesquieu is credited amongst the precursors of anthropology, including Herodotus and Tacitus, to be among
the first to extend comparative methods of classification to the political forms in human societies. Indeed, the
French political anthropologist Georges Balandier considered Montesquieu to be "the initiator of a scientific
enterprise that for a time performed the role of cultural and social anthropology"[2]. According to social
anthropologist D.F. Pocock, Montesquieu's 'Spirit of the Laws' "is the first consistent attempt to survey the varieties
of human society, to classify and compare them and, within society, to study the inter-functioning of institutions"[3].
Montesquieu's political anthropology gave rise to his theories on government.
• Montesquieu's most influential work divided French society into three classes (or trias politica, a term he coined):
the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the commons. Montesquieu saw two types of governmental power existing:
the sovereign and the administrative. The administrative powers were the executive, the legislative, and
the judicial. These should be separate from and dependent upon each other so that the influence of any one
power would not be able to exceed that of the other two, either singly or in combination. This was radical because
it completely eliminated the three Estates structure of the French Monarchy: the clergy, the aristocracy, and the
people at large represented by the Estates-General, thereby erasing the last vestige of a feudalistic structure.
• Likewise, there were three main forms of government, each supported by a social "principle": monarchies (free
governments headed by a hereditary figure, e.g. king, queen, emperor), which rely on the principle of
honor; republics (free governments headed by popularly elected leaders), which rely on the principle of virtue;
and despotisms (enslaved governments headed by dictators), which rely on fear. The free governments are
dependent on fragile constitutional arrangements. Montesquieu devotes four chapters of The Spirit of the Laws to
a discussion of England, a contemporary free government, where liberty was sustained by a balance of powers.
Montesquieu worried that in France the intermediate powers (i.e., the nobility) which moderated the power of the
prince were being eroded. These ideas of the control of power were often used in the thinking of Maximilien
deRobespierre.
• Montesquieu was somewhat ahead of his time in advocating major reform of slavery in The Spirit of the Laws. As
part of his advocacy he presented a satirical hypothetical list of arguments for slavery, which has been open
to contextomy. However, like many of his generation, Montesquieu also held a number of views that might today
be judged controversial. He firmly accepted the role of a hereditary aristocracy and the value of primogeniture, and
while he endorsed the idea that a woman could head a government, he held that she could not be effective as the
head of a family.

109. .
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau (28 June 1712 – 2 July 1778) was a
major Genevois philosopher, writer, and composer of the 18th-
centuryEnlightenment. His political philosophy influenced the French
Revolution and the development of modern political and educational
thought.
• His novel, Emile: or, On Education, which he considered his most important
work, is a seminal treatise on the education of the whole person for
citizenship. His sentimental novel, Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse, was of
great importance to the development of pre-
Romanticism[1] andromanticism in fiction.[2] Rousseau's autobiographical
writings: his Confessions, which initiated the modern autobiography, and
his Reveries of a Solitary Walker were among the pre-eminent examples of
the late 18th-century movement known as the "Age of Sensibility", featuring
an increasing focus on subjectivity and introspection that has characterized
the modern age.
• Rousseau also made important contributions to music as a theorist. During
the period of the French Revolution, Rousseau was the most popular of
the philosophes among members of the Jacobin Club. He was interred as a
national hero in the Panthéon in Paris, in 1794, 16 years after his death.

110. .
• Perhaps Rousseau's most important work is The Social Contract, which outlines the basis for a legitimate political order within a
framework of classical republicanism. Published in 1762, it became one of the most influential works of political philosophy in the Western
tradition. It developed some of the ideas mentioned in an earlier work, the article Economie Politique(Discourse on Political Economy),
featured in Diderot's Encyclopédie. The treatise begins with the dramatic opening lines, "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in
chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they."
• Rousseau claimed that the state of nature was a primitive condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and
necessity of cooperation. As society developed, division of labor and private property required the human race to adopt institutions of law.
In the degenerate phase of society, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men while also becoming increasingly
dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom. According to Rousseau, by joining together into
civil society through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain
free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being
subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law.
• Although Rousseau argues that sovereignty (or the power to make the laws) should be in the hands of the people, he also makes a sharp
distinction between the sovereign and the government. The government is composed of magistrates, charged with implementing and
enforcing the general will. The "sovereign" is the rule of law, ideally decided on by direct democracy in an assembly. Under a monarchy,
however, the real sovereign is still the law. Rousseau was opposed to the idea that the people should exercise sovereignty via a
representative assembly (Book III, Chapter XV). The kind of republican government of which Rousseau approved was that of thecity
state, of which Geneva, was a model, or would have been, if renewed on Rousseau's principles. France could not meet Rousseau's
criterion of an ideal state because it was too big. Much subsequent controversy about Rousseau's work has hinged on disagreements
concerning his claims that citizens constrained to obey the general will are thereby rendered free:
• The notion of the general will is wholly central to Rousseau's theory of political legitimacy. ... It is, however, an unfortunately obscure and
controversial notion. Some commentators see it as no more than the dictatorship of the proletariat or the tyranny of the urban poor (such
as may perhaps be seen in the French Revolution). Such was not Rousseau's meaning. This is clear from theDiscourse on Political
Economy, where Rousseau emphasizes that the general will exists to protect individuals against the mass, not to require them to be
sacrificed to it. He is, of course, sharply aware that men have selfish and sectional interests which will lead them to try to oppress others.
It is for this reason that loyalty to the good of all alike must be a supreme (although not exclusive) commitment by everyone, not only if a
truly general will is to be heeded but also if it is to be formulated successfully in the first place".[21]

111. .
• Legacy
•
•
• A plaque commemorating the bicentenary of Rousseau's birth. Issued by the city of Geneva on 28 June 1912. The legend at the bottom says "Jean-
Jacques, aime ton pays" ("love your country"), and shows Rousseau's father gesturing towards the window. The scene is drawn from a footnote to the
Letter to d'Alembert where Rousseau recalls witnessing the popular celebrations following the exercises of the St Gervais regiment.
• Rousseau's idea of the volonté générale ("general will") was not original with him but rather belonged to a well-established technical vocabulary of
juridical and theological writings in use at the time. The phrase was used by Diderot and also by Montesquieu (and by his teacher,
the Oratorianfriar Nicolas Malebranche). It served to designate the common interest embodied in legal tradition, as distinct from and transcending
people's private and particular interests at any particular time. The concept was also an important aspect of the more radical 17th-century republican
tradition of Spinoza, from whom Rousseau differed in important respects, but not in his insistence on the importance of equality. This emphasis on
equality is Rousseau's most important and consequential legacy, causing him to be both reviled and applauded:
• While Rousseau's notion of the progressive moral degeneration of mankind from the moment civil society established itself diverges markedly from
Spinoza's claim that human nature is always and everywhere the same ... for both philosophers the pristine equality of the state of nature is our ultimate
goal and criterion ... in shaping the "common good", volonté générale, or Spinoza's mens una, which alone can ensure stability and political salvation.
Without the supreme criterion of equality, the general will would indeed be meaningless. ... When in the depths of the French Revolution the Jacobin
clubs all over France regularly deployed Rousseau when demanding radical reforms. and especially anything -- such as land redistribution -- designed to
enhance equality, they were at the same time, albeit unconsciously, invoking a radical tradition which reached back to the late seventeenth century.[30]
• The cult that grew up around Rousseau after his death, and particularly the radicalized versions of Rousseau's ideas that were adopted
byRobespierre and Saint-Just during the Reign of Terror, caused him to become identified with the most extreme aspects of the French
Revolution.[31] The revolutionaries were also inspired by Rousseau to introduce Deism as the new official civil religion of France, scandalizing
traditionalists:
• Ceremonial and symbolic occurrences of the more radical phases of the Revolution invoked Rousseau and his core ideas. Thus the ceremony held at
the site of the demolished Bastille, organized by the foremost artistic director of the Revolution, Jacques-Louis David, in August 1793 to mark the
inauguration of the new republican constitution, an event coming shortly after the final abolition of all forms of feudal privilege, featured a cantata based
on Rousseau's democratic pantheistic deism as expounded in the celebrated "Profession de foi d'un vicaire savoyard" in Book Four of Émile.[32]
• Opponents of the Revolution and defenders of religion, most influentially the Irish essayist Edmund Burke, therefore placed the blame for the excesses
of the French Revolution directly on the revolutionaries' misplaced (as he considered it) adulation of Rousseau. Burke's "Letter to a Member of the
National Assembly", published in February 1791, was a diatribe against Rousseau, whom he considered the paramount influence on French Revolution
(his ad hominem attack did not really engage with Rousseau's political writings). Burke maintained that the excesses of the Revolution were not
accidents but were designed from the beginning and were rooted in Rousseau's personal vanity, arrogance, and other moral failings. He recalled
Rousseau's visit to Britain in 1766, saying: "I had good opportunities of knowing his proceedings almost from day to day and he left no doubt in my mind
that he entertained no principle either to influence his heart or to guide his understanding, but vanity". Conceding his gift of eloquence, Burke deplored
Rousseau's lack of the good taste and finer feelings that would have been imparted by the education of a gentleman:

112. .
• In America, where there was no such cult, the direct influence of Rousseau was arguably less. The American
founders did share Rousseau's enthusiastic admiration for the austere virtues described by Livy and in Plutarch's
portrayals the great men of ancient Sparta and the classical republicanism of early Rome, but so did most other
enlightenment figures. Rousseau’s praise of Switzerland and Corsica’s economies of isolated and self-sufficient
independent homesteads, and his endorsement of a well-regulated citizen militia, such as Switzerland’s, recall the
ideals of Jeffersonian democracy. To Rousseau we owe the invention of the concept of a "civil religion", one of
whose key tenets is religious toleration. Yet despite their mutual insistence on the self evidence that "all men are
created equal", their insistence that the citizens of a republic be educated at public expense, and the evident
parallel between the concepts of the "general welfare" and Rousseau's "general will", some scholars maintain
there is little to suggest that Rousseau had that much effect on Thomas Jefferson and other founding
fathers.[34] They argue that the American constitution owes as much or more to the
English Liberal philosopher John Locke's emphasis on the rights of property and to Montesquieu's theories of
the separation of powers.[35] Rousseau's writings had an indirect influence on American literature through the
writings of Wordsworth and Kant, whose works were important to the New England Transcendentalists Ralph
Waldo Emerson, and his disciple Henry David Thoreau, as well as on such Unitarians as theologian William Ellery
Channing. American novelistJames Fennimore Cooper's Last of the Mohicans and other novels reflect republican
and egalitarian ideals present alike in Rousseau, Thomas Paine, and also in English
Romanticprimitivism[36] Another American admirer was lexicographer Noah Webster.[37]
• [edit]Criticisms of Rousseau
• The first to criticize Rousseau were his fellow Philosophes, above all, Voltaire. According to Jacques Barzun:
• Voltaire, who had felt annoyed by the first essay [On the Arts and Sciences], was outraged by the second,
[Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Among Men], declaring that Rousseau wanted us to “walk on all fours” like
animals and behave like savages, believing them creatures of perfection. From these interpretations, plausible but
inexact, spring the clichés Noble Savage and Back to Nature.[38]

113. .
• The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment) is the era in Western philosophy and
intellectual, scientific and cultural life, centered upon the eighteenth century, in which reason was
advocated as the primary source and legitimacy for authority.
• Developing simultaneously in Germany, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain,
and Portugal, the movement was buoyed by Atlantic Revolutions, especially the success of
the American Revolution in breaking free of the British Empire. Most of Europe was caught up,
including thePolish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russia, and Scandinavia, along with Latin
America in instigating the Haitian Revolution. The authors of the American Declaration of
Independence, the United States Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of
the Citizen, and the Polish-LithuanianConstitution of May 3, 1791, were motivated by
Enlightenment principles.[1]
• The terminology "Enlightenment" or "Age of Enlightenment" does not represent a single
movement or school of thought, for these philosophies were often mutually contradictory or
divergent. The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of values. At its core was a
critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals. Thus, there was still a
considerable degree of similarity between competing philosophies. Also, some philosophical
schools of the period could not be considered part of the Enlightenment at all. Some
classifications of this period also include the late seventeenth century, which is typically known as
the Age of Reason or Age of Rationalism, as part of the Enlightenment; however, the Age of
Reason is more commonly considered a prelude to the ideas of the Enlightenment. [

114. .
• The term "Enlightenment" came into use in English during the mid-nineteenth century,[3] with particular reference
to French philosophy, as the equivalent of a term then in use by German writers, Zeitalter der Aufklärung,
signifying officially the philosophical outlook of the eighteenth century. However, the German term Aufklärung was
not merely applied retrospectively; it was already the common term by 1784, when Immanuel Kant published his
influential essay "Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment?".
• [edit]Timespan
• There is little consensus on when to date the start of the age of Enlightenment and some scholars simply use the
beginning of the eighteenth century or the middle of the seventeenth century as a default date.[4] If taken back to
the mid-1600s, the Enlightenment would trace its origins to Descartes' Discourse on the Method, published in
1637. Others define the Enlightenment as beginning in Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688 or with the publication
of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica which first appeared in 1687. As to its end, some scholars use
the French Revolution of 1789 or the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars (1804–15) as a convenient point in time
with which to date the end of the Enlightenment.[5]
• [edit]Influence
• Historian Peter Gay asserts the Enlightenment broke through "the sacred circle,"[6][clarification needed] whose
dogma had circumscribed thinking. The Enlightenment is held to be the source of critical ideas, such as the
centrality of freedom, democracy, and reason as primary values of society. This view argues that the
establishment of a contractual basis of rights would lead to the market mechanism and capitalism, the scientific
method, religious tolerance, and the organization of states into self-governing republics through democratic
means. In this view, the tendency of the philosophes in particular to apply rationality to every problem is
considered the essential change.
• No brief summary can do justice to the diversity of enlightened thought in 18th-century Europe. Because it was a
value system rather than a set of shared beliefs, there are many contradictory trains to follow.[citation needed] In
his famous essay "What is Enlightenment?" (1784), Immanuel Kant described it simply as freedom to use one's
own intelligence.[7] More broadly, the Enlightenment period is marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor,
and reductionism, along with increasing questioning of religious orthodoxy.
• A variety of 19th-century movements, including liberalism and neo-classicism, traced their intellectual heritage
back to the Enlightenment

115. .
• Social and cultural interpretation
• In opposition to the intellectual historiographical approach of the Enlightenment, which examines the various currents, or discourses of intellectual
thought within the European context during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the cultural (or social) approach examines the changes that
occurred in European society and culture. Under this approach, the Enlightenment is less a collection of thought than a process of changing sociabilities
and cultural practices – both the “content” and the processes by which this content was spread are now important. Roger Chartier describes it as
follows:
• This movement [from the intellectual to the cultural/social] implies casting doubt on two ideas: first, that practices can be deduced from the discourses
that authorize or justify them; second, that it is possible to translate the terms of an explicit ideology the latent meaning of social mechanisms.[9]
• One of the primary elements of the cultural interpretation of the Enlightenment is the rise of the public sphere in Europe. Jürgen Habermas has
influenced thinking on the public sphere more than any other, though his model is increasingly called into question. The essential problem that
Habermas attempted to answer concerned the conditions necessary for “rational, critical, and genuinely open discussion of public issues”. Or, more
simply, the social conditions required for Enlightenment ideas to be spread and discussed. His response was the formation in the late seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries of the “bourgeois public sphere”, a “realm of communication marked by new arenas of debate, more open and accessible forms of
urban public space and sociability, and an explosion of print culture".[10] More specifically, Habermas highlights three essential elements of the public
sphere: it was egalitarian; it discussed the domain of "common concern"; argument was founded on reason.[11]
• James Van Horn Melton provides a good summary of the values of this bourgeois public sphere: its members held reason to be supreme; everything
was open to criticism (the public sphere is critical); and its participants opposed secrecy of all sorts.[12] This helps explain what Habermas meant by the
domain of "common concern". Habermas uses the term to describe those areas of political/social knowledge and discussion that were previously the
exclusive territory of the state and religious authorities, now open to critical examination by the public sphere.
• Habermas credits the creation of the bourgeois public sphere to two long-term historical trends: the rise of the modern nation state and the rise of
capitalism. The modern nation state in its consolidation of public power created by counterpoint a private realm of society independent of the state –
allowing for the public sphere. Capitalism likewise increased society’s autonomy and self-awareness, along with creating an increasing need for the
exchange of information. As the nascent public sphere expanded, it embraced a large variety of institutions, the most commonly cited being coffee
houses and cafés, salons and the literary public sphere, figuratively localized in the Republic of Letters.[13]
• Dorinda Outram provides a more nuanced description of the rise of the public sphere. The context of the rise of the public sphere was the economic and
social change commonly grouped under the effects of the Industrial Revolution: "economic expansion, increasing urbanisation, rising population and
improving communications in comparison to the stagnation of the previous century". Rising efficiency in production techniques and communication
lowered the prices of consumer goods at the same time as it increased the amount and variety of goods available to consumers (including the literature
essential to the public sphere). Meanwhile, the colonial experience (most European states had colonial Empires in the eighteenth century) began to
expose European society to extremely heterogeneous cultures. Outram writes that the end result was the breaking down of "barriers between cultural
systems, religious divides, gender differences and geographical areas". In short, the social context was set for the public sphere to come into
existence.[1

116. .
• Like the French Revolution, the Enlightenment has long been hailed as the foundation of modern
Western political and intellectual culture.[82] It has been frequently linked to the French
Revolution of 1789. However, as Roger Chartier points out, it was perhaps the Revolution that
“invented the Enlightenment by attempting to root its legitimacy in a corpus of texts and founding
authors reconciled and united ... by their preparation of a rupture with the old world”.[83] In other
words, the revolutionaries elevated to heroic status those philosophers, such
asVoltaire and Rousseau, who could be used to justify their radical break with the Old Regime. In
any case, two nineteenth-century historians of the Enlightenment, Hippolyte Taine andAlexis de
Tocqueville, did much to solidify this link of Enlightenment causing revolution and the intellectual
perception of the Enlightenment itself.
• In his l Régime (1876), Hippolyte Taine traced the roots of the French Revolution back to French
Classicism. However, this was not without the help of the scientific view of the world [of the
Enlightenment], which wore down the “monarchical and religious dogma of the old regime”.[84] In
other words then, Taine was only interested in the Enlightenment insofar as it advanced scientific
discourse and transmitted what he perceived to be the intellectual legacy of French classicism.
• Alexis de Tocqueville painted a more elaborate picture of the Enlightenment in L'Ancien Régime
et la Révolution (1850). For de Tocqueville, the Revolution was the inevitable result of the radical
opposition created in the eighteenth century between the monarchy and the men of letters of the
Enlightenment. These men of letters constituted a sort of “substitute aristocracy that was both all-
powerful and without real power”. This illusory power came from the rise of “public opinion”, born
when absolutist centralization removed the nobility and the bourgeosie from the political sphere.
The “literary politics” that resulted promoted a discourse of equality and was hence in fundamental
opposition to the monarchical regime.[85]

117. Important figures
• Edmund Burke (1729–1797) Irish. Parliamentarian and political philosopher, best known for
pragmatism, considered important to both liberal and conservative thinking
• Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) American. Statesman, scientist, political philosopher, pragmatic
deist, author. As a philosopher known for his writings on nationality, economic matters, aphorisms
published in Poor Richard's Almanac and polemics in favour of American Independence. Involved
with writing the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of 1787.
• Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is closely identified with Enlightenment values, progressing
from Sturm und Drang and participating with Schiller in the movement of Weimar Classicis
• Johann Gottfried von Herder German. Theologian and linguist. Proposed that language
determines thought, introduced concepts of ethnic study and nationalism, influential on later
Romantic thinkers. Early supporter of democracy and republican self rule.
• Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) English philosopher, who wrote Leviathan, a key text in political
philosophy.
• Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) American. Statesman, political philosopher, educator, deist. As a
philosopher best known for the United States Declaration of Independence (1776) and his
interpretation of the United States Constitution (1787) which he pursued as president. Argued for
natural rights as the basis of all states, argued that violation of these rights negates the contract
which bind a people to their rulers and that therefore there is an inherent "Right to Revolution."
• Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) German. Philosopher and physicist. Established critical
philosophy on a systematic basis, proposed a material theory for the origin of the solar system,
wrote on ethics and morals. Prescribed a politics of Enlightenment in What is
Enlightenment? (1784). Influenced by Hume and Isaac Newton. Important figure in German
Idealism, and important to the work of Fichte and Hegel.

118. .
• John Locke (1632–1704) English Philosopher. Important empiricist
who expanded and extended the work of Francis Bacon and
Thomas Hobbes. Seminal thinker in the realm of the relationship
between the state and the individual, the contractual basis of the
state and the rule of law. Argued for personal liberty emphasizing
the rights of property, its this emphasis the American constitution
owes much to. Among those of whom his writings influenced
were Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American
revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American
Declaration of Independence..
• Montesquieu (1689–1755) French political thinker. He is famous for
his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, taken for
granted in modern discussions of government and implemented in
many constitutions all over the world.

119. .
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) Swiss political philosopher. Argued that the basis of
morality was conscience, rather than reason, as most other philosophers argued. He wroteDu
Contrat Social, in which Rousseau claims that citizens of a state must take part in creating a
'social contract' laying out the state's ground rules in order to found an ideal society in which they
are free from arbitrary power. His rejection of reason in favor of the "Noble Savage" and his
idealizing of ages past make him truly fit more into the romantic philosophical school, which was a
reaction against the enlightenment. He largely rejected the individualism inherent in classical
liberalism, arguing that the general will overrides the will of the individual.
• Mikhailo Shcherbatov
• Adam Smith (1723–1790) Scottish economist and philosopher. He wrote The Wealth of Nations,
in which he argued that wealth was not money in itself, but wealth was derived from the added
value in manufactured items produced by both invested capital and labour. He is sometimes
considered to be the founding father of the laissez-faire economic theory, but in fact argues for
some degree of government control in order to maintain equity. Just prior to this he wrote Theory
of Moral Sentiments, explaining how it is humans function and interact through what he
calls sympathy, setting up important context for The Wealth of Nations.
• Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) Dutch, philosopher who is considered to have laid the groundwork
for the 18th-century Enlightenment.
• Stanisław August Poniatowski (1732–98), the last king of independent Poland, a leading light of
the Enlightenment in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and co-author of one of the world's
first modern constitutions, the Constitution of May 3, 1791.
• Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) Natural philosopher and theologian whose search for the
operation of the soul in the body led him to construct a detailed metaphysical model for spiritual-
natural causation.
• François-Marie Arouet (pen name Voltaire) (1694–1778) French Enlightenment
writer, essayist, deist and philosopher. He wrote several books, the most famous of which
is Dictionnaire Philosophique, in which he argued that organized religion is pernicious. He was the
Enlightenment's most vigorous antireligious polemicist, as well as being a highly well known
advocate of intellectual freedom.
• Adam Weishaupt (1748–1830) German who founded the Order of the Illuminati.
• John Wilkes
• Christian Wolff (1679–1754) German
• Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) British writer, philosopher, and feminist.

120. .
• Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856 – February 3, 1924)[1][2] was the 28th President of the United States. A leading
intellectual of the Progressive Era, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and then as the Governor of New
Jersey from 1911 to 1913. With Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft dividing the Republican Party vote, Wilson
was elected President as a Democratin 1912.
• In his first term, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act,[3] Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton
Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and America's first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913. Wilson
brought many white Southerners into his administration, and tolerated their expansion of segregation in many federal agencies.[4][5]
• Narrowly re-elected in 1916, Wilson's second term centered on World War I. He based his re-election campaign around the slogan "he
kept us out of the war", but U.S. neutrality was challenged in early 1917 when the German government proposed to Mexico a military
alliance in a war against the U.S., and began unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking without warning every American merchant ship its
submarines could find. Wilson in April 1917 asked Congress to declare war.
• He focused on diplomacy and financial considerations, leaving the waging of the war primarily in the hands of the Army. On the home
front in 1917, he began the United States' first draft since the US civil war, raised billions in war funding through Liberty Bonds, set up
the War Industries Board, promoted labor union growth, supervised agriculture and food production through the Lever Act, took over
control of the railroads, enacted the first federal drug prohibition, and suppressed anti-war movements. National women's suffrage was
also achieved under Wilson's presidency.
• In the late stages of the war, Wilson took personal control of negotiations with Germany, including the armistice. He issued his Fourteen
Points, his view of a post-war world that could avoid another terrible conflict. He went to Paris in 1919 to create the League of Nations and
shape the Treaty of Versailles, with special attention on creating new nations out of defunct empires. Largely for his efforts to form the
League, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1919, during the bitter fight with the Republican-controlled Senate over the U.S.
joining the League of Nations, Wilson collapsed with a debilitating stroke. He refused to compromise, effectively destroying any chance for
ratification. The League of Nations was established anyway, but the United States never joined. A Presbyterian of deep religious faith, he
appealed to a gospel of service and infused a profound sense of moralism into Wilsonianism. Wilson's idealistic internationalism, now
referred to as "Wilsonianism", which calls for the United States to enter the world arena to fight for democracy, has been a contentious
position inAmerican foreign policy, serving as a model for "idealists" to emulate and "realists" to reject ever since.[6

121. .
• Fourteen Points
•
•
• Image of Wilson created by 21,000 soldiers at Camp Sherman, Chillicothe, Ohio,
1918
•
• "Address to the American Indians"
• ("The great white father now calls you his brothers"), an address given in
1913Problems listening to this file? See media help.
• In a speech to Congress on January 8, 1918, Wilson articulated America's war aims.
It was the clearest expression of intention made by any of the belligerent nations. The
speech, authored principally by Walter Lippmann, translated Wilson's progressive
domestic policies into comparably idealistic equivalents for the international arena:
self-determination, open agreements, international cooperation. Promptly dubbed
theFourteen Points, Wilson attempted to make them the basis for the treaty that
would mark the end of the war. They ranged from the most generic principles like the
prohibition of secret treaties to such detailed outcomes as the creation of an
independent Poland with access to the sea.[86]

122. .
• Peace Conference 1919
• Main article: Paris Peace Conference, 1919
• After World War I, Wilson participated in negotiations with the stated aim of assuring statehood for formerly
oppressed nations and an equitable peace. On January 8, 1918, Wilson made his famous Fourteen
Points address, introducing the idea of a League of Nations, an organization with a stated goal of helping to
preserve territorial integrity and political independence among large and small nations alike.[citation needed]
• Wilson intended the Fourteen Points as a means toward ending the war and achieving an equitable peace for all
the nations. He spent six months in Paris for the 1919 Paris Peace Conference (making him the first U.S.
president to travel to Europe while in office). He worked tirelessly to promote his plan. The charter of the proposed
League of Nations was incorporated into the conference's Treaty of Versailles.[citation needed]
•
•
• Wilson returning from the Versailles Peace Conference, 1919.
• For his peace-making efforts, Wilson was awarded the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize,[96] however, he failed to even
win US Senate support for ratification. The United States never joined the League. Republicans under Henry
Cabot Lodge controlled the Senate after the 1918 elections, but Wilson refused to give them a voice at Paris and
refused to agree to Lodge's proposed changes. The key point of disagreement was whether the League would
diminish the power of Congress to declare war. During this period, Wilson became less trustful of the press and
stopped holding press conferences for them, preferring to use his propaganda unit, the Committee for Public
Information, instead.[65]
• A poll of historians in 2006 cited Wilson's failure to compromise with the Republicans on U.S. entry into the
League as one of the 10 largest errors on the part of an American president.[97] The extensive restrictions in the
Treaty of Versailles left the German populace with a resentment against the treaty and ultimately contributed to the
rise of Adolf Hitler and World War II.
• When Wilson traveled to Europe to settle the peace terms, he visited Pope Benedict XV in Rome, making Wilson
the first American President to visit the Pope while in office

123. .
• Idealism (international relations)
• In the American study of international relations, Idealism usually
refers to the school of thought personified
in American diplomatic history by Woodrow Wilson, such that it is
sometimes referred to as Wilsonianism, or Wilsonian Idealism.
Idealism holds that a state should make its internal
politicalphilosophy the goal of its foreign policy. For example, an
idealist might believe that ending poverty at home should be
coupled with tackling poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism was a
precursor to liberal international relations theory, which would arise
amongst the "institution-builders" after World War II. It particularly
emphasized the ideal of American Exceptionalism.
• More generally, the Anglo-Australian scholar of international
relations Hedley Bull wrote:[

124. .
• " By the 'idealists' we have in mind writers such as Sir Alfred Zimmern, S. H.
Bailey, Philip Noel-Baker, and David Mitrany in the United Kingdom, and James T.
Shotwell, Pitman Potter, and Parker T. Moon in the United States. ... The distinctive
characteristic of these writers was their belief in progress: the belief, in particular, that
the system of international relations that had given rise to the First World War was
capable of being transformed into a fundamentally more peaceful and just world
order; that under the impact of the awakening of democracy, the growth of 'the
international mind', the development of the League of Nations, the good works of men
of peace or the enlightenment spread by their own teaching, it was in fact being
transformed; and that their responsibility as students of international relations was to
assist this march of progress to overcome the ignorance, the prejudices, the ill-will,
and the sinister interests that stood in its way."
• Since the 1980s, there has been growing study of the major writers of this idealist
tradition of thought in international relations, including Sir Alfred Zimmern[2], Norman
Angell, John Maynard Keynes[3], John A. Hobson, Leonard Woolf, Gilbert
Murray, Florence Stawell (known as Melian Stawell),Philip Henry Kerr, 11th
Marquess of Lothian, Arnold J. Toynbee, Lester Pearson and David Davies. Recent
practitioners in the United States have included Richard Nixon and Henry
Kissinger.[4]
• Much of this writing has contrasted these idealist writers with 'realists' in the tradition
of E.H. Carr, whose The Twenty Years' Crisis (1939) both coined the term 'idealist'
and was a fierce and effective assault on the inter-war idealists.

125. .
• Idealism is also marked by the prominent role played by international
law and international organizations in its conception of policy formation. One
of the most well-known tenets of modern idealist thinking is democratic
peace theory, which holds that states with similar modes of democratic
governance do not fight one another. Wilson's idealistic thought was
embodied in his Fourteen points speech, and in the creation of the League
of Nations.
• Idealism transcends the left-right political spectrum. Idealists can include
both human rights campaigners (traditionally, but not always, associated
with the left) and American neoconservatism which is usually associated
with the right.
• Idealism may find itself in opposition to Realism, a worldview which argues
that a nation's national interest is more important
than ethical or moralconsiderations; however, there need be no conflict
between the two (see Neoconservatism for an example of a confluence of
the two). Realist thinkers include Hans Morgenthau, Niccolò
Machiavelli, Otto von Bismarck, George F. Kennan and others. Recent
practitioners in the United States have included Ronald Reagan and George
W. Bush.[4

126. .
• Wilsonian idealism
•
•
• Official White House portrait of Woodrow Wilson
• Link finds that Wilson from his earliest days had imbibed the beliefs of his denomination - in the omnipotence of
God, the morality of the Universe, a system of rewards and punishments and the notion that nations, as well as
man, transgressed the laws of God at their peril.[5] Blum (1956) argues that he learned from William Ewart
Gladstone a mystic conviction in the superiority of Anglo-Saxons, in their righteous duty to make the world over in
their image. Moral principle, constitutionalism, and faith in God were among the prerequisites for alleviating human
strife. While he interpreted international law within such a brittle, moral cast, Wilson remained remarkably
insensitive to new and changing social forces and conditions of the 20th century. He expected too much justice in
a morally brutal world which disregarded the self-righteous resolutions of parliaments and statesmen like himself.
Wilson's triumph was as a teacher of international morality to generations yet unborn.[6] Daniel Patrick
Moynihan sees Wilson's vision of world order anticipated humanity prevailing through the "Holy Ghost of Reason,"
a vision which rested on religious faith.[7]
• Wilson's diplomatic policies had a profound influence on shaping the world. Diplomatic historian Walter Russell
Mead has explained:[8]
– Wilson's principles survived the eclipse of the Versailles system and they still guide European politics today: self-determination,
democratic government, collective security, international law, and a league of nations. Wilson may not have gotten everything he
wanted at Versailles, and his treaty was never ratified by the Senate, but his vision and his diplomacy, for better or worse, set the
tone for the twentieth century. France,Germany, Italy, and Britain may have sneered at Wilson, but every one of these powers
today conducts its European policy along Wilsonian lines. What was once dismissed as visionary is now accepted as fundamental.
This was no mean achievement, and no European statesman of the twentieth century has had as lasting, as benign, or as
widespread an influence.
• American foreign relations since 1914 have rested on Wilsonian idealism, says historian David Kennedy, even if
adjusted somewhat by the "realism" represented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger. Kennedy
argues that every president since Wilson has "embraced the core precepts of Wilsonianism. Nixon himself hung
Wilson's portrait in the White House Cabinet Room. Wilson's ideas continue to dominate American foreign policy in
the twenty-first century. In the aftermath of 9/11 they have, if anything, taken on even greater vitality."[9]

127. .
• Descendant theories
• Idealism proper was a relatively short-lived school of thought, and suffered a crisis of confidence
following the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of World War II. However,
subsequent theories of international relations would draw elements from Wilsonian Idealism when
constructing their world views.
• [edit]Liberalism
• Main article: Liberal international relations theory
• Liberalism manifested a tempered version of Wilson's idealism in the wake of World War I.
Cognizant of the failures of Idealism to prevent renewed isolationism following World War I, and
its inability to manage the balance of power in Europe to prevent the outbreak of a new war, liberal
thinkers devised a set of international institutions based on rule of law and regularized interaction.
These international organizations, such as the United Nations and the NATO, or even
international regimes such as the Bretton Woods system, and General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT), were calculated both to maintain a balance of power as well as regularize
cooperation between nations.
• [edit]Neoconservatism
• Main article: Neoconservatism
• Neoconservatism drew from Liberalism its intense focus on the promotion of "universal values", in
this case democracy, human rights, free trade, women's rights and minority protections. However,
it differs in that it is less wedded to the importance of preserving international institutions and
treaties while pursuing assertive or aggressive stances which it deems morally worthy, and is
willing to use force or the threat of force, unilaterally if necessary, to push for its goals

128. .
• Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that the ultimate nature of reality
is based on the mind or ideas. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted
with realism in which the external world is said to have an
apparent absolute existence after which, and independent of completely, knowledge
and consciousness. Epistemological idealists (such asKant), it is claimed, might insist
that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas
(abstraction).
• In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in which the
ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances. Idealism and materialism
are both theories ofmonism as opposed to dualism and pluralism. Idealism
sometimes refers to a tradition in thought that represents things of a perfect form, as
in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In this way, it represents a
human perfect being or circumstance. In the ancient philosophy of the Vedas,
idealism refers to the dynamic consciousness of living beings that emanates from
the divine cosmic source.[citation needed] In much the same way, idealism has
spread throughout the world. Individual societies have inspired and grown their own
specific set of idealism, but they all have these generalities in common.
• Idealism is a philosophical movement in Western thought, and names a number of
philosophical positions with sometimes quite different tendencies and implications in
politics and ethics; for instance, at least in popular culture, philosophical idealism is
associated with Plato and the school of platonism.

129. Idealism
• Contents
• [hide]
• 1 Idealism and ancient philosophy
– 1.1 Antiphon
– 1.2 Plato
– 1.3 Plotinus
• 2 Modern philosophy
– 2.1 Malebranche
– 2.2 Leibniz
– 2.3 Collier
– 2.4 Kant
– 2.5 Fichte
– 2.6 Schelling
– 2.7 Hegel
– 2.8 Schopenhauer
– 2.9 British idealism
– 2.10 Karl Pearson
• 3 Criticism
– 3.1 Immanuel Kant
– 3.2 Søren Kierkegaard
– 3.3 Friedrich Nietzsche
– 3.4 G. E. Moore
– 3.5 Bertrand Russell
– 3.6 A.C. Ewing
– 3.7 David Stove
– 3.8 John Searle
– 3.9 Alan Musgrave
– 3.10 Philip J. Neujahr

130. .
• Hegel
• Hegel is another German philosopher whose dialectical system has been called idealistic. In his Science of
Logic (1812–1814) Hegel argued that finite qualities are not fully "real," because they depend on other finite
qualities to determine them. Qualitative infinity, on the other hand, would be more self-determining, and hence
would have a better claim to be called fully real. Similarly, finite natural things are less "real"--because they're less
self-determining—than spiritual things like morally responsible people, ethical communities, and God. So any
doctrine, such as materialism, that asserts that finite qualities or merely natural objects are fully real, is mistaken.
Hegel called his philosophy absolute idealism, in contrast to the "subjective idealism" of Berkeley and the
"transcendental idealism" of Kant and Fichte, philosophies which were not based (like Hegel's idealism) on a
critique of the finite, and a dialectical philosophy of history. Some commentators have maintained that Hegel's
dialectical system most closely resembles that of Plato and Plotinus, however, there is an exact historical
difference between ancient and modern thought, at least in the history of philosophy. One might say that none of
these three thinkers associate their idealism with the so-called epistemological thesis that what we know are ideas
in our minds.[4]
• It is perhaps a noteworthy fact that some commentators of Hegel fail to distinguish Hegelian idealism from either
the philosophy of Berkeley or Kant.[5] Hegel certainly intends to preserve what he takes to be true of German
idealism, in particular Kant's insistence that ethical reason can and does go beyond finite inclinations.[6] However,
some commentators hold that Hegel does not endorse Kant's conception of the thing-in-itself, or the type of
epistemological perplexities that led Kant to that view. Still less does Hegel endorse Berkeley's doctrine that to be
is to perceive or to be perceived—in the purely Berkeleyian sense. The guiding ideal behind Hegel's absolute
idealism is the scientific thought, which he shares with Plato and other great idealist thinkers, that the exercise of
reason and intellect enables the philosopher to know ultimate historical reality, which in the Hegelian system is the
phenomenological constitution of self-determination,--the dialectical development of self-awareness and
personality in the realm of History. By giving this Ideal a central role in his philosophy, Hegel made a lasting
contribution to that part of the Western mindset, beginning in earnest with Plato and his Pre-Socratic
predecessors, which makes Idealism the basis of civilization and progress in the world.

131. .
• Criticism on idealism
• [edit]Immanuel Kant
• In the 1st edition (1781) of his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant described idealism thus:
• We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within ourselves can be immediately and
directly perceived, and that only my own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus
the existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately and directly in
perception, but can only be added in thought to the perception, which is a modification of the
internal sense, and thus inferred as its external cause ... . In the true sense of the word, therefore,
I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer their existence from my own internal
perception, regarding the perception as an effect of something external that must be the proximate
cause ... . It must not be supposed, therefore, that an idealist is someone who denies the
existence of external objects of the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by
immediate and direct perception ... .
• – Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.
• In the 2nd edition (1787) of his Critique of Pure Reason, he wrote a section called Refutation of
Idealism to distinguish his transcendental idealism from Descartes's Sceptical Idealism
andBerkeley's Dogmatic Idealism. In addition to this refutation in both the 1781 & 1787 editions
the section "Paralogisms of Pure Reason" is an implicit critique of Descartes' Problematic
Idealism, namely the Cogito. He says that just from "the spontaneity of thought" (cf. Descartes'
Cogito) it is not possible to infer the 'I' as an object. Kant also defined idealism in the following
manner: "The assertion that we can never be certain whether all of our putative outer experience
is not mere imagining is idealism."[9]

132. .
• Criticism on idealism
• Bertrand Russell
• Despite Bertrand Russell's hugely popular book The Problems of
Philosophy (this book was in its 17th printing by 1943) which was written for
a general audience rather than academia, few ever mention his critique
even though he completely anticipates David Stove's GEM both in form and
content (see below for David Stove's GEM). In chapter 4 (Idealism) he
highlights Berkeley's tautological premise for advancing idealism.
• Quoting Russell's prose (1912:42-43):
– "If we say that the things known must be in the mind, we are either un-duly
limiting the mind's power of knowing, or we are uttering a mere tautology. We are
uttering a mere tautology if we mean by 'in the mind' the same as by 'before the
mind', i.e. if we mean merely being apprehended by the mind. But if we mean
this, we shall have to admit that what, in this sense, is in the mind, may
nevertheless be not mental. Thus when we realize the nature of knowledge,
Berkeley's argument is seen to be wrong in substance as well as in form, and his
grounds for supposing that 'idea'-i.e. the objects apprehended-must be mental,
are found to have no validity whatever. Hence his grounds in favour of the
idealism may be dismissed."

133. .
• Realist theories share the following key assumptions:
• The international system is anarchic. There is no authority above states capable of
regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their
own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
• Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system and special
attention is afforded to great powers as they have the most leverage on the
international stage. International institutions, non-governmental organizations,
multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are
viewed as having little independent influence.
• States are rational unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest.
There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
• The overriding 'national interest' of each state is its national security and survival.
• In pursuit of national security, states strive to amass resources.
• Relations between states are determined by their comparative level of power derived
primarily from their military and economic capabilities.
• There are no universal principles which all states can use to guide their actions.
Instead, a state must be ever aware of the actions of the states around it and must
use a pragmatic approach to resolve the problems that arise.
• The injection of morality into international relations causes reckless commitments,
diplomatic rigidity, and the escalation of conflict

134. Realism 1
• In summary, realists believe that mankind is not inherently
benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive. This
perspective, which is shared by theorists such as Thomas Hobbes,
views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and
conflictual unless given the right conditions under which they can
coexist, contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international
relations. Further, they believe that states are inherently aggressive
(offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive
realism); and that territorial expansion is only constrained by
opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to
a security dilemma where increasing one's security can bring along
even greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms in
response. Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where
only relative gains can be made. There are no universal principles
which all states can use to guide their actions. Instead, a state must
always be aware of the actions of the states around it and must use
a pragmatic approach to resolve the problems that arise.

135. .
• While Realism as a formal discipline in international relations did not arrive until World War II, its primary
assumptions have been expressed in earlier writings
• In summary, realists believe that mankind is self-centered and competitive. This Hobbesian perspective,
which views human nature as selfish and conflictual . Further, they believe that states are inherently
aggressive (offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism); and that territorial
expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a
security dilemma where increasing one's security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s)
builds up its own arms in response. Thus, security is a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be
achieved.
• Sun Tzu (or Sunzi), an ancient Chinese military strategist who wrote the Art of War.
• Thucydides, an ancient Greek historian who wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War and is also cited
as an intellectual forebearer of realpolitik.
• Chanakya (or Kautilya) early Indian statesman, and writer on the Arthashastra.
• Han Feizi, Chinese scholar who theorised Legalism (or Legism) and who served in the court of the King of
Qin -
• Niccolò Machiavelli,
• Cardinal Richelieu, French statesman who guided France to a position of dominance in foreign affairs.
• Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher who wrote Leviathan in which he stated the State of Nature was
prone to a "war of all against all".
• Frederick the Great, Prussian monarch who transformed Prussia through warfare and dubious
diplomacy.
• Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, French diplomat who guided France & Europe.
• Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich, Koblenz-born Austrian statesman opposed to political revolution.
• Carl von Clausewitz was a 18-19th century Prussian general and military theorist who wrote On War (Vom
Kriege).
• Otto von Bismarck, a Prussian statesman coined the term balance of power. Balancing power meant
keeping the peace and careful realpolitik practitioners tried to avoid arms races.
• 20th century proponents of realism include Henry Kissinger, the National Security Adviser and Secretary
of State to President Richard Nixon, French General and President Charles de Gaulle, and Soviet leader
Joseph Stalin

136. 2
• Classical realism states that it is fundamentally the nature of man
that pushes states and individuals to act in a way that places
interests over ideologies. Classical realism is defined as the “drive
for power and the will to dominate [that are] held to be fundamental
aspects of human nature” [3]
• Modern realism began as a serious field of research in the United
States during and after World War II. This evolution was partly
fueled by European war migrants like Hans Morgenthau.
• George F. Kennan - Containment
• Nicholas Spykman - Geostrategy, Containment
• Herman Kahn - Nuclear strategy
• E.H. Carr

137. 3
• Liberal realism or the English school or rationalism
• Main article: English school of international relations theory
• The English School's holds that the international system, while
anarchical in structure, forms a "society of states" where common
norms and interests allow for more order and stability than what
might be expected in a strict realist view. Prominent English School
writer Hedley Bull's 1977 classic entitled The Anarchical Society is a
key statement of this position.
• Prominent liberal realists:
• Hedley Bull - argued for both the existence of an international
society of states and its perseverance even in times of great
systemic upheaval, meaning regional or so-called “world wars”.
• Martin Wight

138. 4
• Neorealism or structural realism
• Main article: Neorealism (international relations)
• Neorealism derives from classical realism except that instead of human nature, its
focus is predominantly on the international system. While states remain the principal
actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states
through levels of analysis or structure-agency debate. The international system is
seen as a structure acting on the state with individuals below the level of the state
acting as agency on the state as a whole.
• While neorealism shares a focus on the international system with the English School,
neorealism differs in the emphasis it places on the permanence of conflict. To ensure
state security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic
and military build-up.
• Prominent neorealists:
• Robert Jervis - Defensive realism
• Kenneth Waltz - Neorealism
• Stephen Walt - Defensive realism
• John Mearsheimer - Offensive realism
• Robert Gilpin - Hegemonic theory

139. 5
• Neoclassical realism
• Neoclassical Realism can be seen as the third generation of realism, coming after the classical authors of the first
wave (Thucydides, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and the neorealists (esp. Kenneth Waltz). Its designation of
"neoclassical", then, has a double meaning: 1) It offers the classics a renaissance; 2) It is a synthesis of the
neorealist and the classical realist approaches.
• Gideon Rose is responsible for coining the term in a book review he wrote[4].
• The primary motivation underlying the development of neoclassical realism was the fact that neorealism was only
useful to explain political outcomes (classified as being 'theories of international politics'), but had nothing to offer
about particular states' behavior (or 'theories of foreign policy'). The basic approach, then, was for these authors to
"refine, not refute, Kenneth Waltz", by adding domestic intervening variables between systemic incentives and a
state's foreign policy decision. Thus, the basic theoretical architecture of Neoclassical Realism is:
• Distribution of power in the international system (independent variable) >>> Domestic perception of the system
and/or domestic incentives (intervening variable) >>> Foreign Policy decision (dependent variable)
• While neoclassical realism has only been used for theories of foreign policy so far, Randall Schweller notes that it
could be useful to explain certain types of political outcomes as well.[5].
• Neoclassical realism is particularly appealing from a research standpoint because it still retains a lot of the
theoretical rigor that Waltz has brought to realism, but at the same time can easily incorporate a content-rich
analysis, since its main method for testing theories is the process-tracing of case studies.
• Prominent neoclassical realists[4]:
• Randall Schweller
• Thomas J. Christensen
• William Wohlforth
• Aaron Friedberg
• Norrin Ripsman

140. 6
• Realism in statecraft
• Modern realist statesmen
• Henry Kissinger.[6]
• Zbigniew Brzezinski
• Brent Scowcroft

141. 7
• Criticisms in Realism
• [edit]Democratic peace
• Democratic peace theory advocates also that Realism is not applicable to democratic states'
relations with each another, as their studies claim that such states do not go to war with one
another. However, Realists and proponents of other schools have critiqued both this claim and the
studies which appear to support it, claiming that its definitions of 'war' and 'democracy' must be
tweaked in order to achieve the desired result. This is along with Archaic rule of law.
• [edit]Federalism
• Main article: federalism
• The term refers to the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided
between sub-units and a centre. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split
between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act
independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two
authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit and centre may vary. Typically the
centre has powers regarding defence and foreign policy, but sub-units may also have international
roles. The sub-units may also participate in central decision-making bodies.
• The basic idea behind federalism is that relations between states should be conducted under the
rule of law. Conflict and disagreement should be resolved through peaceful means rather than
through coercion or war. Its most important aspect is in recognizing that different types of
institutions are needed to deal with different types of political issues.
• [edit]Post-realism
• Post-realism suggests that Realism is a form of social scientific and political rhetoric. It opens
rather than closes a debate about what is real and what is realistic in international relations.

142. .
• Liberal realism or the English school or
rationalism
• Main article: English school of international
relations theory
• The English School's holds that the international
system, while anarchical in structure, forms a
"society of states" where common norms and
interests allow for more order and stability than
what might be expected in a strict realist view.
Prominent English School writer Hedley Bull's
1977 classic entitled The Anarchical Society is a
key statement of this position

143. .
• [edit] Neorealism or structural realism
• Main article: Neorealism (international relations)
• Neorealism derives from classical realism except that instead of human nature, its
focus is predominantly on the international system. While states remain the principal
actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states through or
structure-agency debate. The international system is seen as a structure acting on
the state with individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as
a whole.
• While neorealism shares a focus on the international system with the English School,
neorealism differs in the emphasis it places on the permanence of conflict. To ensure
state security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic
and military build-up.
• Prominent neorealists:
• Robert Jervis - Defensive realism
• Kenneth Waltz - Defensive realism
• Stephen Walt - Defensive realism
• John Mearsheimer - Offensive realism
• Robert Gilpin - Hegemonic theory

144. .
• [edit] Neoclassical realism
• Neoclassical Realism can be seen as the third generation of realism, coming after the classical
authors of the first wave (Thucydides, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and the neorealists (esp.
Kenneth Waltz). Its designation of "neoclassical", then, has a double meaning: 1) It offers the
classics a renaissance; 2) It is a synthesis of the neorealist and the classical realist approaches.
• Gideon Rose is responsible for coining the term in a book review he wrote[4].
• The primary motivation underlying the development of neoclassical realism was the fact that
neorealism was only useful to explain political outcomes (classified as being 'theories of
international politics'), but had nothing to offer about particular states' behavior (or 'theories of
foreign policy'). The basic approach, then, was for these authors to "refine, not refute, Kenneth
Waltz", by adding domestic intervening variables between systemic incentives and a state's
foreign policy decision. Thus, the basic theoretical architecture of Neoclassical Realism is:
• Distribution of power in the international system (independent variable) >>> Domestic perception
of the system and/or domestic incentives (intervening variable) >>> Foreign Policy decision
(dependent variable)
• While neoclassical realism has only been used for theories of foreign policy so far, Randall
Schweller notes that it could be useful to explain certain types of political outcomes as well.[5].
• Neoclassical realism is particularly appealing from a research standpoint because it still retains a
lot of the theoretical rigor that Waltz has brought to realism, but at the same time can easily
incorporate a content-rich analysis, since its main method for testing theories is the process-
tracing of case studies.
• Prominent neoclassical realists[4]:
• Randall Schweller
•
• William Wohlforth
• Aaron Friedberg
•

145. .
• [edit] Criticisms
• [edit] Democratic peace
• Democratic peace theory advocates also that Realism is not applicable to democratic states'
relations with each another, as their studies claim that such states do not go to war with one
another. However, Realists and proponents of other schools have critiqued both this claim and the
studies which appear to support it, claiming that its definitions of 'war' and 'democracy' must be
tweaked in order to achieve the desired result. This is along with Archaic rule of law.
• [edit] Federalism
• Main article: federalism
• The term refers to the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided
between sub-units and a centre. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split
between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act
independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two
authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit and centre may vary. Typically the
centre has powers regarding defence and foreign policy, but sub-units may also have international
roles. The sub-units may also participate in central decision-making bodies.
• The basic idea behind federalism is that relations between states should be conducted under the
rule of law. Conflict and disagreement should be resolved through peaceful means rather than
through coercion or war. Its most important aspect is in recognizing that different types of
institutions are needed to deal with different types of political issues.
• [edit] Post-realism
• Post-realism suggests that Realism is a form of social scientific and political rhetoric. It opens
rather than closes a debate about what is real and what is realistic in international relations

146. .
Complex interdependence
• Complex interdependence in international relations is the idea put
forth by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye that states and their
fortunes are inextricably tied together. The concept of economic
interdependence was popularized through the work of Richard N.
Cooper. With the analytical construct of complex interdependence in
their critique of political realism, “Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye go
a step further and analyze how international politics is transformed by
interdependence” . The theorists recognized that the various and
complex transnational connections and interdependencies between
states and societies were increasing, while the use of military force
and power balancing are decreasing but remain important. In making
use of the concept of interdependence, Keohane and Nye (1997:) also
importantly differentiated between interdependence and dependence
in analyzing the role of power in politics and the complex
interdependence is characterized by three characteristics, involving
(1) the use of multiple channels of action between societies in
interstate, transgovernmental, and transnational relations, (2) the
absence of a hierarchy of issues with changing agendas and linkages
between issues prioritized and the objective of (3) bringing about a
decline in the use of military force and coercive power in international
relations. Respectively, complex interdependence is based on specific
characteristics that critique the implicit and explicit assumptions of
traditional international politics; [1] (i.e., the superiority of the state
and a hierarchy of issues with military force and power the most
important leverages in international relations, which traditionally
defines political realism in political science).

147. .
• Nye and Keohane thus argue that the decline of military force as a
policy tool and the increase in economic and other forms of
interdependence should increase the probability of cooperation
among states. The work of the theorists surfaced in the 1970s to
become a significant challenge to political realist theory in
international politics and became foundational to current theories
that have been categorized as liberalism, neoliberalism and liberal
institutionalism. Traditional critiques of liberalism are often defined
alongside critiques of political realism, mainly that they both ignore
the social nature of relations between states and the social fabric of
international society. With the rise of neoliberal economics,) has
most recently described himself as simply an institutionalist, nothing
purpose for developing sociological perspectives in contemporary
international relations theory. Liberal, neoliberal and neoliberal
institutional theories continue to influence international politics and
have become closely intertwined with political realism

148. .
• Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is used in the social
sciences, most notably in economics, as well as in biology, engineering,
political science, international relations, computer science, and philosophy.
Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic
situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the
choices of others. While initially developed to analyze competitions in which
one individual does better at another's expense (zero sum games), it has been
expanded to treat a wide class of interactions, which are classified according
to several criteria. Today, "game theory is a sort of umbrella or 'unified field'
theory for the rational side of social science, where 'social' is interpreted
broadly, to include human as well as non-human players (computers, animals,
plants)" (Aumann 1987).
• Traditional applications of game theory attempt to find equilibria in these
games. In an equilibrium, each player of the game has adopted a strategy that
they are unlikely to change. Many equilibrium concepts have been developed
(most famously the Nash equilibrium) in an attempt to capture this idea. These
equilibrium concepts are motivated differently depending on the field of
application, although they often overlap or coincide. This methodology is not
without criticism, and debates continue over the appropriateness of particular
equilibrium concepts, the appropriateness of equilibria altogether, and the
usefulness of mathematical models more generally.
• Although some developments occurred before it, the field of game theory came
into being with the 1944 book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by
John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern

149. .
• Classical realism states that it is fundamentally the nature of
man that pushes states and individuals to act in a way that places
interests over ideologies. Classical realism is defined as the “drive
for power and the will to dominate [that are] held to be fundamental
aspects of human nature” [3]
• Modern realism began as a serious field of research in the United
States during and after World War II. This evolution was partly
fueled by European war migrants like,
• Hans Morgenthau.
• George F. Kennan - Containment
• Nicholas Spykman - Geostrategy, Containment
• Herman Kahn - Nuclear strategy
• E. H. Carr
• Reinhold Niebuhr
• John H. Herz
•
• Charles Beard
• Walter Lippmann

150. .
• Neorealism or structural realism is a
theory of international relations, outlined by
Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book Theory of
International Politics. Waltz argues in favor of a
systemic approach: the international structure
acts as a constraint on state behavior, so that
only states whose outcomes fall within an
expected range survive. This system is similar to
a microeconomic model in which firms set prices
and quantity based on the market.
• Neorealism, developed largely within the
American political science tradition, seeks to
reformulate the classical realist tradition of E.H.
Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Reinhold Niebuhr
into a rigorous and positivistic social science

151. .
• Neorealism shuns classical realism's use of often essentialist concepts such as
"human nature" to explain international politics. Instead, neorealist thinkers developed
a theory that privileges structural constraints over agents' strategies and motivations.
• Neorealism holds that the international structure is defined by its ordering principle,
which is anarchy, and by the distribution of capabilities, measured by the number of
great powers within the international system. The anarchic ordering principle of the
international structure is decentralized, having no formal central authority, and is
composed of formally equal sovereign states. These states act according to the logic
of self-help--states seek their own interest and will not subordinate their interest to
another's.
• States are assumed at a minimum to want to ensure their own survival as this is a
prerequisite to pursue other goals. This driving force of survival is the primary factor
influencing their behavior and in turn ensures states develop offensive military
capabilities, for foreign interventionism and as a means to increase their relative
power. Because states can never be certain of other states' future intentions, there is
a lack of trust between states which requires them to be on guard against relative
losses of power which could enable other states to threaten their survival. This lack of
trust, based on uncertainty, is called the security dilemma.
• States are deemed similar in terms of needs but not in capabilities for achieving
them. The positional placement of states in terms of abilities determines the
distribution of capabilities. The structural distribution of capabilities then limits
cooperation among states through fears of relative gains made by other states, and
the possibility of dependence on other states. The desire and relative abilities of each
state to maximize relative power constrain each other, resulting in a 'balance of
power', which shapes international relations. It also gives rise to the 'security
dilemma' that all nations face. There are two ways in which states balance power:
internal balancing and external balancing. Internal balancing occurs as states grow
their own capabilities by increasing economic growth and/or increasing military
spending. External balancing occurs as states enter into alliances to check the power
of more powerful states or alliances

152. .
• Neorealists contend that there are essentially 3 possible systems according to changes in the
distribution of capabilities, defined by the number of great powers within the international system.
A unipolar system contains only one great power, a bipolar system contains two great powers,
and a multipolar system contains more than two great powers. Neorealists conclude that a bipolar
system is more stable (less prone to great power war and systemic change) than a multipolar
system because balancing can only occur through internal balancing as there are no extra great
powers with which to form alliances[1]. Because there is only internal balancing in a bipolar
system, rather than external balancing and internal balancing, there is less opportunity for
miscalculations and therefore less chance of great power war.[2]
• Neorealists conclude that because war is an effect of the anarchic structure of the international
system, it is likely to continue in the future. Indeed, neorealists often argue that the ordering
principle of the international system has not fundamentally changed from the time of Thucydides
to the advent of nuclear warfare. The view that long-lasting peace is not likely to be achieved is
described by other theorists as a largely pessimistic view of international relations. One of the
main challenges to neorealist theory is the democratic peace theory and supporting research such
as the book Never at War. Neorealists answer this challenge by arguing that democratic peace
theorists tend to pick and choose the definition of democracy to get the wanted empirical result.
For example, Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the Dominican Republic of Juan Bosch, or Chile of
Salvador Allende are not considered to be democratic or the conflicts do not qualify as wars
according to these theorists. Furthermore they claim several wars between democratic states
have been averted only by causes other than ones covered by democratic peace theory. [3]
• [edit] Notable neorealists
• Robert J. Art
• Joseph Grieco
• Robert Jervis
• John Mearsheimer
• Randall Schweller
• Stephen Walt
• Kenneth Waltz

153. .
• Offensive realism is a variant of political realism.
Like realism, offensive realism regards states as the
primary actors in international relations. However,
offensive realism adds several additional assumptions to
the framework of structural realism. John Mearsheimer
developed this theory in his book The Tragedy of Great
Power Politics. [edit] Assumptions
• The international system is anarchical
• States are rational
• States have survival as their primary goal
• All states possess some offensive military capability
• States can never be certain of the intentions of other
states
•

154. .
• Offensive realism is a structural theory which, unlike the classical
realism of Morgenthau, blames security conflict on the anarchy of
the international system, not on human nature or particular
characteristics of individual great powers. In contrast to other
structural realist theories, offensive realism believes that states are
not satisfied with a given amount of power, but seek hegemony
(maximization of their share of world power) for security and
survival.
• John Mearsheimer summed this view up in his book The Tragedy of
Great Power Politics: "Given the difficulty of determining how much
power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize
that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony
now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great
power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to
become hegemon in the system because it thought it already had
sufficient power to survive."

155. .
• This behavior is known as "power maximization." In this world there is no
such thing as a status quo power, since according to Mearsheimer, "a great
power that has a marked power advantage over its rivals is likely to behave
more aggressively because it has the capability as well as the incentive to
do so."
• States also fear each other, assuming that the other state intentions are not
benevolent. The states may have other goals than survival, but survival will
always takes precedence. The state may engage in cooperation and
initiatives to create world order, but such initiatives are always unsuccessful
or short-lived, as desire for power, security and survival creates tensions
which lead to their failure.
• As John Mearsheimer has been quoted in explaining, Offensive Realism
follows from a core of assumptions from basic Realism. These are: 1. All
States are rational actors 2. Survival of the State takes precedence 3. We
live in Anarchic world 4. All States have offensive military capability 5. All
States are security seeking
• Offensive realism also dismisses democratic peace theory, which claims
that democracies—specifically, liberal democracies—never or rarely go to
war with one another

156. .
• [edit] Criticisms
• Political scientists whose primary focus is bargaining models of international
conflict note that Mearsheimer's offensive realism ignores the fact
that war is costly. Since those costs in turn make war inefficient, states
(even those who do not have hegemony) have incentive to construct
bargained settlements. For instance, in a bipolar world with a 70%/30%
power breakdown, states would prefer a corresponding 70%/30%
breakdown in resources rather than having some of those resources
destroyed over the course of fighting. Due to this inefficiency--war's
inefficiency puzzle--the constant fighting Mearsheimer proposes would
actually make states less secure because the repeated costs of fighting
eventually deplete all of that state's power.
• In addition, if we were to test offensive realism's hypothesis, we would
expect to see war prevalent in the international system when, in fact, most
states are not fighting most other states most of the time

157. .
• defensive realism is a variant of political realism. Defensive realism looks at states
as rational players who are the primary actors in world affairs. Defense realism predicts that
anarchy on the world stage causes states to become obsessed with security. This results in
security dilemmas wherein one state's drive to increase its security can, because security is zero
sum, result in greater instability as that state's opponent(s) respond to their resulting reductions in
security.
• Among defensive realism's most prominent theories is that of offense-defensive theory which
states that there is an inherent balance in technology, geography, and doctrine that favors either
the attacker or defender in battle. Offense-Defense theory tries to explain the First World War as a
situation in which all sides believed the balance favored the offense but were mistaken
• Defensive structural realists break with the other main branch of structural realism,
offensive realism, over whether or not states must always be maximizing relative
power ahead of all other objectives. While the offensive realist believes this to be the
case, some defensive realists believe that the offense-defense balance can favor the
defender, creating the possibility that a state may achieve security.[1] A second-strike
capable nuclear arsenal is often understood to indicate the supremacy of the defense
in the offense-defense balance, essentially guaranteeing security for the state which
possesses it. Some defensive realists also differ from their offensive counterparts in
their belief that states may signal their intentions to one another. If a state can
communicate that its intentions are benign to another state, than the security
dilemma may be overcome.[2] Finally, many defensive realists believe that domestic
politics can influence a state's foreign policy; offensive realists tend to treat states as
black boxes.[3]
• In modern times, several economic and political groups are known to benefit from the
effects Defensive Realism, in terms of both the economic activity generated in
delivering the resources or technology needed to increase a particular state's own
security, as well as the positive feedback effect caused by the perceived
destabilization to an opponents own security by comparative observation.
• Prominent defensive realists include Stephen Walt, Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Van
Evera, and

158. .
• Functionalism is a theory of international relations that arose
during the inter-War period principally from the strong concern about the
obsolescence of the State as a form of social organization. Rather than the
self-interest of nation-states that realists see as a motivating factor,
functionalists focus on common interests and needs shared by states (but
also by non-state actors) in a process of global integration triggered by the
erosion of state sovereignty and the increasing weight of knowledge and
hence of scientists and experts in the process of policy-making (Rosamond,
2000). Its roots can be traced back to the liberal/idealist tradition that started
with Kant and goes as far as Woodrow Wilson's "Fourteen Points" speech.
(Rosamond, 2000)
• Functionalism is a pioneer in globalisation theory and strategy. States had
built authority structures upon a principle of territorialism. State-theories
were built upon assumptions that identified the scope of authority with
territory (Held 1996, Scholte: 1993, 2000, 2001), aided by methodological
territorialism (Scholte 1993). Functionalism proposed to build a form of
authority based in functions and needs, which linked authority with needs,
scientific knowledge, expertise and technology, i.e. it provided a
supraterritorial concept of authority.
• According to functionalism, international integration - the collective
governance and 'material interdependence'

159. .
• Neofunctionalism is a theory of regional integration,
building on the work of Ernst B. Haas, an American
political scientist. Jean Monnet's approach to European
integration, which aimed at integrating individual sectors
in hopes of achieving spill-over effects to further the
process of integration, is said to have followed the
neofunctional school's tack. Haas later declared the
theory of neofunctionalism obsolete, after the process of
European integration started stalling in the 1960s, when
Charles de Gaulle's "empty chair" politics paralyzed the
institutions of the European Coal and Steel Community,
European Economic Community, and European Atomic
Energy Community. Neofunctionalism has also been
called too eurocentric and hence incapable of describing
the process of integration in general

160. .
• Unlike previous theories of integration, neofunctionalism was non-
normative and tried to describe and explain the process of regional
integration based on empirical data. Integration was regarded as an
inevitable process, rather than a desirable state of affairs that could
be introduced by the political or technocratic elites of the involved
states' societies. Its strength however was also its weakness: While
it understood that regional integration is only feasible as an
incremental process, its conception of integration as a linear process
made the explanation of setbacks impossible.
• Neofunctionalism holds that functional spill-over occurs from the
cooperation and social-integration of technocrats into increasingly
political realms.
• Neofunctionalism nonetheless remains an important theory in the
study of international relations. Neofunctionalism is often contrasted
with intergovernmentalism

161. .
• Neofunctionalism and the European Union
• Neofunctionalism argues that the supranational institutions of the European Union
themselves have been a driving force behind European integration; reinterpreting
agreed results from Intergovernmental Conferences in order to expand the mandate
of EU legislation into new and more diverse areas. The theory of neofunctionalism is
felt by some to be important as it may explain much of the thinking behind the early
proponents of the European Union, such as Jean Monnet, who saw increased
European integration as the most important precursor to a peaceful Europe.
• Neofunctionalism assumes a decline in importance of nationalism and the nation-
state; it sees the executive power and interest groups within states to be pursuing a
welfarist objective which is best satisfied by integration of EU states. The thinking
behind the neofunctionalist theory can be best described by considering the three
mechanisms which neofunctionalists see as key to driving the process of integration
forwards. These are positive spillover, the transfer of domestic allegiances and
technocratic automaticity:
• Positive spillover effect is the concept that integration between states in one
economic sector will quickly create strong incentives for integration in further sectors;
in order to fully capture the benefits of integration in the original sector.
• The mechanism of a transfer in domestic allegiances can be best understood by
first noting that an important assumption within neofunctionalist thinking is of a
pluralistic society within the relevant nation states. Neofunctionalists claim that, as the
process of integration gathers pace, interest groups and associations within the
pluralistic societies of the individual nation states will transfer their allegiance away
from national institutions towards the supranational European institutions. They will
do this because they will, in theory, come to realise that these newly formed
institutions are a better conduit through which to pursue their material interests than
the pre-existing national institutions.
• Finally, technocratic automaticity describes the way in which, as integration
hastens, the supranational institutions set up to oversee that integration process will
themselves take the lead in sponsoring further integration as they become more
powerful and more autonomous of the member states.

162. .
• Intergovernmentalism is an alternative theory of political integration,
where power in international organizations is possessed by the member-
states and decisions are made by unanimity. Independent appointees of the
governments or elected representatives have solely advisory or
implementational functions. Intergovernmentalism is used by most
international organizations today. An alternative method of decision-making
in international organizations is supranationalism.
• Intergovernmentalism is also a theory on European integration which rejects
the idea of neofunctionalism. The theory, initially proposed by Stanley
Hoffmann and refined by Andrew Moravcsik suggests that governments
control the level and speed of European integration. Any increase in power
at supranational level, he argues, results from a direct decision by
governments. He believed that integration, driven by national governments,
was often based on the domestic political and economic issues of the day.
The theory rejects the concept of the spill over effect that neofunctionalism
proposes. He also rejects the idea that supranational organisations are on
an equal level (in terms of political influence) as national governments

163. .
• In the discipline of international relations,
constructivismis the claim that significant aspects
of international relations are historically and socially
contingent, rather than inevitable consequences of human
nature or other essential characteristics of world politics
• Constructivist epistemology is an epistemological perspective in
philosophy about the nature of scientific knowledge.[1]
Constructivists maintain that scientific knowledge is constructed by
scientists and not discovered from the world.
• Constructivism believes that there is no single valid methodology
and there are other methodologies for social science: qualitative
research.[2]
• It thus is opposed to positivism, which is a philosophy that holds that
the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on actual sense
experience

164. .
• Ashley, Kratochwil, and Onuf, still work in this area of constructivism,
but most of its practitioners were trained or now work in Europe.
• [edit] Theory
• Constructivism primarily seeks to demonstrate how many core aspects of
international relations are, contrary to the assumptions of Neorealism and
Neoliberalism, socially constructed, that is, they are given their form by
ongoing processes of social practice and interaction.
• Alexander Wendt calls two increasingly accepted basic tenets of
Constructivism
• "(1) that the structures of human association are determined primarily by
shared ideas rather than material forces, and
• (2) that the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by
these shared ideas rather than given by nature"[4].
• [edit] Challenging Realism
• Because Neorealism was—during Constructivism's formative period—the
dominant discourse of International Relations, much of Constructivism's
initial theoretical work is in challenging certain basic Neorealist
assumptions. Neorealists are fundamentally causal Structuralists, in that
they hold that the majority of important content to international politics is
explained by the structure of the international system, a position first
advanced in Kenneth Waltz's Man, the State and War and fully elucidated in
his core text of Neorealism

165. • Identities and interests
• As Constructivists reject Neorealism's conclusions about
the determining effect of anarchy on the behavior of international
actors, and move away from Neorealism's underlying materialism,
they create the necessary room for the identities and interests of
international actors to take a central place in theorizing international
relations.
• .. Now that actors are not simply governed by the imperatives of a
self-help system, their identities and interests become important in
analyzing how they behave.
• Like the nature of the international system, Constructivists see such
identities and interests as not objectively grounded in material forces
(such as dictates of the human nature that underpins Classical
Realism) but the result of ideas and the social construction of such
ideas.

166. .
• Martha Finnemore has been influential in examining the way in
which international organizations are involved in these processes of
the social construction of actor's perceptions of their interests[11].
• In National Interests In International Society, Finnemore attempts to
"develop a systemic approach to understanding state interests and
state behavior by investigating an international structure, not of
power, but of meaning and social value"[12].
• "Interests", she explains, "are not just 'out there' waiting to be
discovered; they are constructed through social interaction"[12].
• Finnemore provides three case studies of such
construction –
1. the creation of Science Bureaucracies in states due to the influence
of UNESCO,
2. the role of the Red Cross in the Geneva Conventions and
3. the World Bank's influence of attitudes to poverty.

167. .
• Studies of such processes are examples of the Constructivist
attitude towards state interests and identities.
• Such interests and identities are central determinants of state
behavior, as such studying their nature and their formation is integral
in Constructivist methodology to explaining the international system.
But it is important to note that despite this refocus onto identities and
interests - properties of States - Constructivists are not necessarily
wedded to focusing their analysis at the unit-level of international
politics: the state.
• Constructivists such as Finnemore and Wendt both emphasize that
while ideas and processes tend to explain the social construction of
identities and interests, such ideas and processes form a structure
of their own which impact upon international actors.
• Their central difference from Neorealists is to see this International
Structure as being primarily ideational rather than material in
nature[13][14].

168. .
• Many constructivists analyze international relations by looking
at the goals, threats, fears, cultures, identities, and other
elements of "social reality" on the international stage as the
social constructs of the actors.
• In a key edited volume,[15] constructivist scholars[16]
challenge many traditional realist assumptions about how the
international system operates, especially with regard to military
security issues.
• Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber[17] have applied
constructivism to understand the evolution of state sovereignty
as a central theme in international relations, and works by
Rodney Bruce Hall[18] and Daniel Philpott[19] (among others)
have developed constructivist theories of major
transformations in the dynamics of international politics.
• In international political economy, the application of
constructivism has been less frequent. Notable examples of
constructivist work in this area include Kathleen R.
McNamara's study of European Monetary Union[20] and Mark
Blyth's analysis of the rise of Reaganomics (Reagon) in the
United States.[21]

169. .
• By focusing on how language and rhetoric
are used to construct the social reality of the
international system, constructivists are
often seen as more optimistic about
progress in international relations than
versions of realism loyal to a purely
materialist ontology, but a growing number
of constructivists question the "liberal"
character of constructivist thought and
express greater sympathy for realist
pessimism concerning the possibility of
emancipation from power politics.[22]

170. .
• Constructivism is often presented as an alternative to the two
leading theories of international relations, realism and
liberalism, but some maintain that it is not necessarily
inconsistent with one either or both.[23]
• Wendt shares some key assumptions with leading realist and
neorealist scholars, such as the existence of anarchy and the
centrality of states in the international system (Realists) .
• However, Wendt renders anarchy in cultural rather than
materialist terms; he also offers a sophisticated theoretical
defense of the state-as-actor assumption in international
relations theory.
• This is a contentious issue within segments of the IR
community as some constructivists challenge Wendt on some
of these assumptions (see, for example, exchanges in Review
of International Studies, vol. 30, 2004).
• [edit] Recent Developments

171. .
• A significant group of scholars who study processes of social
construction self-consciously eschew the label "Constructivist." They
argue that "mainstream" constructivism has abandoned many of the
most important insights from linguistic-turn and social-constructionist
theory in the pursuit of respectability as a "scientific" approach to
international relations.[24]
• Even some putatively "mainstream" constructivists, such as , have
expressed concern that constructivists have gone too far in their
efforts to build bridges with non-constructivist schools of thought.[25]
• A growing number of constructivists contend that current theories pay
inadequate attention to the role of habitual and unreflective behavior
in world politics.[26]
• These advocates of the "practice turn" take inspiration from work in
neuroscience, as well as that of social theorists such as Pierre
Bourdieu, that stresses the significance of habit in psychological and
social life.[27] [28

172. .
• Postmodern architecture was an international style whose first examples
are generally cited as being from the 1950s, but which did not become a
movement until the late 1970s[1] and continues to influence present-day
architecture. Postmodernity in architecture is generally thought to be heralded
by the return of "wit, ornament and reference" to architecture in response to
the formalism of the International Style of modernism. As with many cultural
movements, some of postmodernism's most pronounced and visible ideas can
be seen in architecture. The functional and formalized shapes and spaces of
the modernist movement are replaced by unapologetically diverse aesthetics:
styles collide, form is adopted for its own sake, and new ways of viewing
familiar styles and space abound
• Deconstructivism in architecture, also called deconstruction, is a development
of postmodern architecture that began in the late 1980s. It is characterized by ideas
of fragmentation, an interest in manipulating ideas of a structure's surface or skin,
non-rectilinear shapes which serve to distort and dislocate some of the elements of
architecture, such as structure and envelope. The finished visual appearance of
buildings that exhibit the many deconstructivist "styles" is characterized by a
stimulating unpredictability and a controlled chaos.

173. .
• Neo-Marxism is a loose term for various twentieth-century
approaches that amend or extend Marxism and Marxist theory,
usually by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions,
such as: critical theory or psychoanalysis.
• Erik Olin Wright's theory of contradictory class locations, which
incorporates Weberian sociology; and critical criminology, which
incorporates anarchism.[1] As with many uses of the prefix neo-,
many theorists and groups designated as neo-Marxist have
attempted to supplement the perceived deficiencies of orthodox
Marxism or dialectical materialism.
• Many prominent neo-Marxists, such as Herbert Marcuse, were
sociologists and psychologists.
• Neo-Marxism comes under the broader heading of New Left
thinking.
• Neo-Marxism is also used frequently to describe
opposition to inequalities experienced by Lesser
Developed Countries in a globalized world.
• In a sociological sense, neo-Marxism adds Max Weber's broader
understanding of social inequality, such as status and power, to
Marxist philosophy.
• Strains of neo-Marxism include: critical theory, analytical Marxism
and French structural Marxism

174. .
• Characteristics of the modern world-system
• Proponents of world-systems analysis see the world stratification system
the same way Karl Marx viewed class (ownership versus non-ownership of
the means of production) and Max Weber viewed class (which, in addition
to ownership, stressed occupational skill level in the production process).
• The core nations primarily own and control the major means of production in
the world and perform the higher-level production tasks.
• The periphery nations own very little of the world’s means of production
(even when they are located in periphery nations) and provide less-skilled
labor. Like a class system with a nation, class positions in the world
economy result in an unequal distribution of rewards or resources.
• The core nations receive the greatest share of surplus production, and
periphery nations receive the least.
• Furthermore, core nations are usually able to purchase raw materials and
other goods from noncore nations at low prices, while demanding higher
prices for their exports to noncore nations.

175. .
• Chirot (1986) lists the five most important
benefits coming to core nations from their
domination of periphery nations:
• Access to a large quantity of raw material
• Cheap labor
• Enormous profits from direct capital investments
• A market for exports
• Skilled professional labor through migration of
these people from the noncore to the core

176. .
• Core conflict and hegemony
• Throughout the history of the modern world-system there has
been a group of core nations competing with one another for
access to the world’s resources, economic dominance, and
hegemony over periphery nations.
• There has been one core nation with clear dominance over others
since the beginning of the world-system.
• According to Immanuel Wallerstein, a core nation is dominant over
all the others when it has a lead in three forms of economic
dominance over a period of time:
• Productivity dominance allows a country to produce products of
greater quality at a cheaper price compared to other countries.
• Productivity dominance may lead to trade dominance. Now, there
is a favorable balance of trade for the dominant nation since more
countries are buying the products of the dominant country than it is
buying from them.

177. .
• Trade dominance may lead to financial dominance.
Now, more money is coming into the country than going
out. Bankers of the dominant nation tend to receive more
control of the world’s financial resources.[4]
• Military dominance is also likely after a nation reaches
these three rankings.
• However, it has been posited that throughout the modern
world-system, no nation has been able to use its military
to gain economic dominance.
• Each of the past dominant nations became dominant
with fairly small levels of military spending, and began to
lose economic dominance with military expansion later
on

178. .
• Rationalism in politics is often seen as
the mid point in the three major political
viewpoints of realism, rationalism, and
internationalism.
• Whereas Realism and Internationalism
are both on ends of the scale, rationalism
tends to occupy the middle ground on
most issues, and finds compromise
between these two conflicting points of
view

179. .
• Believers of Rationalism believe that multinational and
multilateral organisations have their place in the world order,
but not that a world government would be feasible.
• They point to current international organisations, most notably
the United Nations, and point out that these organisations leave
a lot to be desired and, in some cases, do more harm than
good.
• They believe that this can be achieved through greater
international law making procedures and that the use of force
can be avoided in resolving disputes.[1]
• Rationalists tend to see the rule of law and order as being
equally important to states as it helps reduce conflicts. This in
turn helps states become more willing to negotiate treaties and
agreements where it best suits their interests. However, they
see it as wrong for a nation to promote its own national
interests, reminiscent of Internationalism, but that there is
already a high level of order in the international system without
a world government.[1]

180. .
• [edit] Views on sovereignty
• Rationalists believe that states have a right to
sovereignty, particularly over territory, but that this
sovereignty can be violated in exceptional
circumstances, such as human rights violations.
• In situations such as that of Burma after Cyclone
Nargis, rationalists find it acceptable for other states
to violate that country's sovereignty in order to help
its people. This would be where an organisation
such as the United Nations would come in and
decide whether the situation is exceptional enough
to warrant a violation of that state's sovereignty.[1]

181. .
• Applied rationalism
• [edit] United Nations reform
• It is believed that the proposals for reform of the
United Nations come from rationalist thoughts
and points of view.
• This belief is held because most members of the
U.N agree that the U.N requires reform, in the
way of expanding or abolishing the Security
Council and granting it more powers to violate
sovereignty if necessary

182. .
• Positivism in international relations theory
• From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Jump to: navigation, search
• In international relations theory, positivism refers to a
school of thought which believes that the methodologies
of the natural sciences can help explain the social world.
• Post-positivism in international relations theory- In
international relations theory, post-positivism refers to
theories of international relations which epistemologically
reject positivism, the idea that the empiricist observation
of the natural sciences can be applied to the socical
sciences

183. .
• [edit] Comparison to other political perspectives
• [edit] Realism
• Realists believe that states act independently of each other and that states'
sovereignty is effectively sacred.
• Rationalists agree to a certain extent. However, as stated previously,
rationalism includes sovereignty as a vital factor, but not as untouchable
and 'sacred'.
• Realists also hold the Treaty of Westphalia and the international system that
arose from this as the international system that prevails to this day.
• Rationalists acknowledge that the treaty has played an important part in
shaping international relations and the world order and that certain aspects,
such as sovereignty, still exist and play a vital role, but not that it has
survived in its entirety. They believe that through the existence of
international organisations, such as the European Union and the United
Nations, the international system is less anarchic than Realists claim [2].

184. .
• Internationalism
• Internationalists believe in a world order where an effective world
government would govern the world, that sovereignty is an outdated
concept and barrier to creating peace, the need for a common
humanity () and the need for cooperative solutions.
• Rationalists adhere to these beliefs to some extent. For example,
with regards to the need for a common humanity and cooperative
solutions, rationalists see this as being achieved without the need to
abolish sovereignty and the Westphalian concept of the nation-state.
• The current system is seen as the example of this, as nation-states
still hold their sovereignty and yet international organisations exist
that potentially have the power to violate it, for the need to create
peace, law and order.[1]

185. .
• Web definitions for internationalism
• the doctrine that nations should cooperate because their common
interests are more important than their differences
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context
• Search Results
• internationalism - definition of internationalism by the Free ...
• in·ter·na·tion·al·ism ( n t r-n sh -n -l z m). n. 1. The condition or
quality of being international in character, principles, concern, or
attitude. ...
•
Internationalism is a political movement that advocates a greater
economic and political cooperation among nations for the theoretical
benefit of all
• 1. the belief in cooperation between nations for the common good.
2. advocacy of this concept. Internationalist.
electionalize.com/info-glossary.asp
• or Wilsonianism- is the contrasting belief that America’s national
security requires involvement and sometimes diplomatic or military
alliances ..

186. Post-Internationalism
• This paper suggests that the central question in IR theory today is
not perhaps how "the international" should be conceived, rather
what role either the state and interstate relations continue to have in
a globalizing world with numerous actors of different types engaged
in almost every significant issue.
• Postinternational theory advances this worldview in an aggressive
fashion.
• Yet it is also true that
(a) traditional theoretical perspectives continue to have their utility in
limited contexts; and
(b) postinternational theory intersects in interesting ways with
traditional approaches as well as some of their most important
challengers.
• The central organizing question, the paper maintains, is which
actors exercise a significant influence over outcomes in particular
issues—and why?

187. Structuralism
• International relations theory attempts to provide a
conceptual framework upon which international relations
can be analyzed.
• [3] Ole Holsti describes international relations theories
act as a pair of coloured sunglasses, allowing the wearer
to see only the salient events relevant to the theory.
• An adherent of realism may completely disregard an
event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial,
and vice versa. The three most popular theories are
realism, liberalism and constructivism.[4]

188. .
• International relations theories can be divided into
"positivist/rationalist" theories which focus on a principally
state-level analysis, and "post-positivist/reflectivist" ones which
incorporate expanded meanings of security, ranging from class,
to gender, to postcolonial security.
• Many often conflicting ways of thinking exist in IR theory,
including
1. constructivism,
2. institutionalism,
3. Marxism,
4. neo-Gramscianism, and
5. others.
• However, two positivist schools of thought are most prevalent:
1. realism and
2. liberalism; though increasingly,
3. constructivism is becoming mainstream[5] and
4. postpositivist theories are increasingly popular, particularly
outside the United States

189. .
• Constructivism, social constructivism[21] or
idealism[22] has been described as a challenge
to the dominance of neo-liberal and neo-realist
international relations theories.[23]
• The key tenet of constructivism is the belief
that "International politics is shaped by
persuasive ideas, collective values, culture, and
social identities".[24]
• Constructivism argues that international reality is
socially constructed by cognitive structures
which give meaning to the material world.[25]
• The theory emerged out of debates concerning
the scientific method of international relations
theories and theories role in the production of
international power

190. .
• .[26] Emanuel Adler states that constructivism occupies a middle
ground between rationalist and interpretative theories of
international relations.[27] The failure of either realism or liberalism
to predict the end of the Cold War boosted the credibility of
constructivist theory. Constructivist theory criticses the static
assumptions of traditional international relations theory and
emphasize that international relations is a social construction.
Constructivism is a theory critical of the ontological[28] basis of
rationalist theories of international relations. Whereas realism deals
mainly with security and material power, and liberalism looks
primarily at economic interdependence and domestic-level factors,
constructivism most concerns itself with the role of ideas in shaping
the international system (Indeed it is possible there is some overlap
between constructivism and realism or liberalism, but they remain
separate schools of thought).

191. .
• By "ideas" constructivists refer to the goals, threats,
fears, identities, and other elements of perceived reality
that influence states and non-state actors within the
international system. Constructivists believe that these
ideational factors can often have far-reaching effects, and that they
can trump materialistic power concerns. For example, constructivists
note that an increase in the size of the US military is likely to be
viewed with much greater concern in Cuba, a traditional antagonist
of the US, than in Canada, a close US ally. Therefore, there must be
perceptions at work in shaping international outcomes. As such,
constructivists do not see anarchy as the invariable foundation of the
international system,[29] but rather argue, in the words of Alexander
Wendt, that "anarchy is what states make of it".[30]
Constructivists also believe that social norms shape and
change foreign policy over time rather than security
which realists cite

192. .
• Marxist and Neo-Marxist international relations theories
are structuralist paradigms which reject the realist/liberal
view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on
the economic and material aspects. Marxist approaches
argue the position of historical materialism and make the
assumption that the economic concerns transcend
others; allowing for the elevation of class as the focus of
study.
• Marxists view the international system as an integrated
capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation.
• A sub-discipline of Marxist IR is Critical Security Studies.
Gramscian approaches rely on the ideas of Italian
Antonio Gramsci whose writings concerned the
hegemony that capitalism holds as an ideology.
• Marxist approaches have also inspired Critical Theorists
such as Robert Cox who argues that "Theory is always
for someone and for some purpose".[31]

193. .
• One notable Marxist approach to international relations theory is
Immanuel Wallerstein's World-system theory which can be traced
back to the ideas expressed by Lenin in Imperialism:
• The Highest Stage of capitalism. World-system theory argues that
globalized capitalism has created a core of modern industrialized
countries which exploit a periphery of exploited "Third World"
countries.
• These ideas were developed by the Latin American Dependency
School. "Neo-Marxist" or "New Marxist" approaches have return to
the writings of Karl Marx for their inspiration.
• Key "New Marxists" include Justin Rosenberg and Benno Teschke.
• Marxist approaches have enjoyed a renaissance since the collapse
of communism in Eastern Europe.
• Criticisms of Marxists approaches to international relations theory
include the narrow focus on material and economic aspects of life

194. .
• Functionalism is a theory of international relations
that arose principally from the experience of European
integration. Rather than the self-interest that realists see
as a motivating factor, functionalists focus on common
interests shared by states. Integration develops its own
internal dynamic: as states integrate in limited functional
or technical areas, they increasingly find that momentum
for further rounds of integration in related areas. This
"invisible hand" of integration phenomenon is termed
"spill-over." Although integration can be resisted, it
becomes harder to stop integration's reach as it
progresses. This usage, and the usage in functionalism
in international relations, is the less commonly used
meaning of the term functionalism.

195. .
• More commonly, however, functionalism is a term used to describe
an argument which explains phenomena as functions of a system
rather than an actor or actors.
• Immanuel Wallerstein employed a functionalist theory when he
argued that the Westphalian international political system arose to
secure and protect the developing international capitalist system.
• His theory is called "functionalist" because it says that an event was
a function of the preferences of a system and not the preferences of
an agent.
• Functionalism is different from structural or realist arguments in that
while both look to broader, structural causes, realists (and
structuralists more broadly) say that the structure gives incentives to
agents, while functionalists attribute causal power to the system
itself, bypassing agents entirely

196. .
• Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is
determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its
contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people.
• It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth
of an action is determined by its outcome.
• Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase "the greatest good for
the greatest number of people", and is also known as "the greatest
happiness principle". Utility, the good to be maximized, has been
defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus
suffering or pain), although preference utilitarians define it as the
satisfaction of preferences.
• It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure
being of ultimate importance.

197. .
• Utilitarianism can be characterised as a
quantitative and reductionist approach to
ethicsUtilitarian Thinkers
• Jeremy Bentham
• John Stuart Mill
• Henry Sidgwick
• Peter Singer

198. .
• Consequentialism refers to those moral
theories which hold that the consequences of a
particular action form the basis for any valid
moral judgment about that action (or create a
structure for judgment, see rule
consequentialism). Thus, from a
consequentialist standpoint, a morally right
action is one that produces a good outcome, or
consequence. This view is often expressed as
the aphorism "The ends justify the means".

199. .
• Consequentialism is usually understood as distinct from deontology,
in that deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of an act from
the character of the act itself rather than the outcomes of the action,
and from virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent
rather than on the nature or consequences of the action itself. The
difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie
more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral
conclusions reached. For example, a consequentialist may argue
that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced
by lying — though a consequentialist may allow that certain
foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A
deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of
any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist,
however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and
instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said
about one's character and moral behavior

200. .
• Realpolitik (German: real “realistic”, “practical” or “actual”; and
Politik “politics”) refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on
practical considerations, rather than ideological notions.
• In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with
those of realism[ambiguous] and pragmatism.
• The term realpolitik is often used pejoratively to imply
politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.
• Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of
power, not ideals, morals, or principles.
• The term was coined by Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck, a
German writer and politician in the 19th century, following Klemens
von Metternich's lead in finding ways to balance the power of
European empires

201. .
• A foreign policy guided by realpolitik can also be
described as a realist foreign policy.
• Realpolitik is related to the philosophy of political
realism and can be regarded as one of its foundations,
as both implicate power politics.
• Realpolitik, however, is a prescriptive guideline for
policy-making (like foreign policy), while realism is a
paradigm that includes a wide variety of theories that
describe, explain and predict international relations.
• Realpolitik also focuses on the balance of power among
nation-states, which is also a central concern in realism.
• Both also imply operation according to the belief that
politics is based on the pursuit, possession, and
application of power.

202. .
• Communism is a social structure in
which classes are abolished and property is
commonly controlled, as well as a political
philosophy and social movement that advocates
and aims to create such a society.[1]
• Karl Marx posited that communism would be the
final stage in society, which would be achieved
through a proletarian revolution and only
possible after a transitional stage develops the
productive forces, leading to a superabundance
of goods and services.[2][3]

203. .
• "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a
classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on
what to produce and what policies to pursue are
made democratically, allowing every member of society to
participate in the decision-making process in both the political and
economic spheres of life. In modern usage, communism is often
used to refer to the policies of the various communist states, which
were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned
economies and ownership of all the means of production. Most
communist governments based their ideology on Marxism-Leninism.
• As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a
branch of socialism, a broad group of economic and political
philosophies that draw on various political and intellectual
movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial
Revolution and the French Revolution.[4]Communism attempts to
offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market
economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism.

204. .
• Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for
the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the
main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the
Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie), to replace the bourgeoisie as
the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or
racial divisions.[1] The dominant forms of communism, such
as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based
on Marxism, as well as other forms of communism (such
as Luxemburgism and Council communism), but non-Marxist
versions of communism (such as Christian
communism and Anarchist communism) also exist.
• Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how
communism would function as an economic system, but it is
understood that a communist economy would consist of common
ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of
the concept of private ownership of capital, which referred to the
means of production in Marxian terminology.

205. .
• Marxist schools of communism
• Self-identified communists hold a variety of views,
including Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, council
communism, Luxemburgism, anarchist
communism, Christian communism, and various currents
of left communism. However, the offshoots of
the Marxist-Leninist interpretations of Marxism are the
most well-known of these and have been a driving force
in international relations during most of the 20th
century.[1]
• Marxism
•
•

206. .
• The Communist Manifesto.
• Main article: Marxism
• Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to
capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be
responsible for the exploitation of workers. But whereas
earlier socialists often favored longer-term social reform,
Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all
but inevitable, and the only path to socialism and
communism.
• According to the Marxist argument for communism, the
main characteristic of human life in class
society is alienation; and communism is desirable
because it entails the full realization of human
freedom.[6] Marx here follows Georg Wilhelm Friedrich

207. .
• Hegel in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of
restraints but as action with content.[7] According to Marx,
Communism's outlook on freedom was based on an agent, obstacle,
and goal. The agent is the common/working people; the obstacles
are class divisions, economic inequalities, unequal life-chances,
andfalse consciousness; and the goal is the fulfillment of human
needs including satisfying work, and fair share of the product.[8][9]
• They believed that communism allowed people to do what they
want, but also put humans in such conditions and such relations with
one another that they would not wish to exploit, or have any
need to. Whereas for Hegel the unfolding of this ethical life in
history is mainly driven by the realm of ideas, for Marx,
communism emerged from material forces, particularly the
development of the means of production.[7]

208. .
• Marxism holds that a process of class conflict and
revolutionary struggle will result in victory for
the proletariat and the establishment of acommunist
society in which private ownership is abolished over time
and the means of production and subsistence belong
to the community. Marx himself wrote little about life
under communism, giving only the most general
indication as to what constituted a communist society. It
is clear that it entails abundance in which there is little
limit to the projects that humans may undertake.[citation
needed] In the popular slogan that was adopted by
the communist movement, communism was a world in
which each gave according to their abilities, and
received according to their needs. The German
Ideology (1845) was one of Marx's few writings to
elaborate on the communist future:

209. .
• "In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive
sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in
any branch he wishes, society regulates the general
production and thus makes it possible for me to do one
thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the
morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening,
criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever
becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."[10]
• Marx's lasting vision was to add this vision to a theory of
how society was moving in a law-governed way toward
communism, and, with some tension, a political theory
that explained why revolutionary activity was required to
bring it about.[7]

210. .
• In the late 19th century, the terms "socialism" and "communism"
were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels
argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a
fully developed state, but would pass through a "first phase" in which
most productive property was owned in common, but with some
class differences remaining. The "first phase" would eventually
evolve into a "higher phase" in which class differences were
eliminated, and a state was no longer needed. Lenin frequently used
the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first
phase" of communism and used the term "communism"
interchangeably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of
communism.[11]
• These later aspects, particularly as developed by Vladimir Lenin,
provided the underpinning for the mobilizing features of 20th century
Communist parties.

211. .
• Marxism-Leninism
• Main articles: Marxism-Leninism and Leninism
• Marxism-Leninism is a version of socialism adopted by the Soviet
Union and most Communist Parties across the world today. It
shaped the Soviet Union and influenced Communist Parties
worldwide. It was heralded as a possibility of building communism
via a massive program ofindustrialization and collectivization.
Despite the fall of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries,
many communist Parties of the world today still lay claim to uphold
the Marxist-Leninist banner. Marxism-Leninism expands on Marxists
thoughts by bringing the theories to what Lenin and other
Communists considered, the age of capitalist imperialism, and a
renewed focus on party building, the development of a socialist
state, and democratic centralism as an organizational principle.

212. .
• Lenin adapted Marx’s urban revolution to Russia’s agricultural conditions,
sparking the “revolutionary nationalism of the poor”.[12] The pamphlet What
is to be Done? (1902), proposed that the (urban) proletariat can
successfully achieve revolutionary consciousness only under the leadership
of a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries — who can achieve aims
only with internal democratic centralism in the party; tactical and ideological
policy decisions are agreed via democracy, and every member must
support and promote the agreed party policy.
• To wit, capitalism can be overthrown only with revolution — because
attempts to reform capitalism from within (Fabianism) and from without
(democratic socialism) will fail because of its inherent contradictions. The
purpose of a Leninist revolutionary vanguard party is the
forceful deposition of the incumbent government; assume power (as agent
of the proletariat) and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat government.
Moreover, as the government, the vanguard party must educate the
proletariat — to dispel the societal false
consciousness of religionand nationalism that are culturally instilled by
the bourgeoisie in facilitating exploitation. The dictatorship of the proletariat
is governed with a de-centralized direct democracy practised
viasoviets (councils) where the workers exercise political power (cf. soviet
democracy); the fifth chapter of State & Revolution, describes it:

213. • “. . . the dictatorship of the proletariat — i.e. the organisation of the
vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of
crushing the oppressors. . . . An immense expansion of democracy,
which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy
for the people, and not democracy for the rich: . . . and suppression
by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and
oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy
undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism.”[13]
• The Bolshevik government was hostile to nationalism, especially
to Russian nationalism, the “Great Russian chauvinism”, as an
obstacle to establishing the proletarian dictatorship.[14] The
revolutionary elements of Leninism — the disciplined vanguard
party, a dictatorship of the proletariat, and class war.

214. • Stalinism
• Main article: Stalinism
• "Stalinism" refers to the political system of the Soviet Union, and the
countries within the Soviet sphere of influence, during the leadership
of Joseph Stalin. The term usually defines the style of a government
rather than an ideology. The ideology was "Marxism-
Leninism theory", reflecting that Stalin himself was not a
theoretician, in contrast to Marx and Lenin, and prided himself on
maintaining the legacy of Lenin as a founding father for the Soviet
Union and the future Socialist world. Stalinism is an interpretation of
their ideas, and a certain political regime claiming to apply those
ideas in ways fitting the changing needs of society, as with the
transition from "socialism at a snail's pace" in the mid-twenties to the
rapid industrialization of theFive-Year Plans.

215. • The main contributions of Stalin to communist
theory were:
• The groundwork for the Soviet policy concerning
nationalities, laid in Stalin's 1913 work Marxism
and the National Question,[15] praised by Lenin.
• Socialism in One Country,
• The theory of aggravation of the class struggle
along with the development of socialism, a
theoretical base supporting the repression of
political opponents as necessary.
• Trotskyism

216. • History
• Main article: History of communism
• Early communism
• Further information: Primitive
communism, Religious
communism, and Utopian socialism
• Karl Heinrich Marx saw primitive communism as
the original, hunter-gatherer state of humankind
from which it arose. For Marx, only after
humanity was capable of producing surplus, did
private property develop.[citation needed]

217. • In the history of Western thought, certain elements of the idea of a
society based on common ownership of property can be traced back
to ancient times .[citation needed] Examples include
the Spartacus slave revolt in Rome.[24] The fifth
century Mazdak movement in what is now Iran has been described
as "communistic" for challenging the enormous privileges of the
noble classes and the clergy, criticizing the institution of private
property and for striving for an egalitarian society.[25]
• At one time or another, various small communist communities
existed, generally under the inspiration of Scripture.[26] In
the medieval Christian church, for example,
some monasticcommunities and religious orders shared their land
and other property (see religious communism and Christian
communism). These groups often believed that concern with private
propertywas a distraction from religious service to God and
neighbor.[citation needed]

218. • Communist thought has also been traced back to the work of 16th
century English writer Thomas More. In his treatise Utopia (1516), More
portrayed a society based on common ownership of property, whose rulers
administered it through the application of reason.[citation needed] In the
17th century, communist thought arguably surfaced again in England. In
17th century England, a Puritan religious group known as
the Diggers advocated the abolition of private ownership of land.[citation
needed] Eduard Bernstein, in his 1895 Cromwell and
Communism[27] argued that several groupings in the English Civil War,
especially the Diggers espoused clear communistic, agrarian ideals, and
that Oliver Cromwell's attitude to these groups was at best ambivalent and
often hostile.[28]
• Criticism of the idea of private property continued into the Age of
Enlightenment of the 18th century, through such thinkers as Jean Jacques
Rousseau in France.[citation needed] Later, following the upheaval of
the French Revolution, communism emerged as a political
doctrine.[29] François Noël Babeuf, in particular, espoused the goals of
common ownership of land and total economic and political equality among
citizens.[citat

219. • Various social reformers in the early 19th century
founded communities based on common ownership. But
unlike many previous communist communities, they
replaced the religious emphasis with a rational and
philanthropic basis.[26] Notable among them
were Robert Owen, who founded New Harmony in
Indiana (1825), and Charles Fourier, whose followers
organized other settlements in the United States such
as Brook Farm (1841–47).[26] Later in the 19th century,
Karl Marx described these social reformers as "utopian
socialists" to contrast them with his program of "scientific
socialism" (a term coined by Friedrich Engels). Other
writers described by Marx as "utopian socialists"
included Saint-Simon.

220. • In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist
movement of 19th century Europe.[citation needed] As
the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics
blamed capitalism for the misery of the proletariat —
a new class of urban factory workers who labored under
often-hazardous conditions. Foremost among these
critics were the German philosopher Karl Marx and his
associate Friedrich Engels. In 1848, Marx and Engels
offered a new definition of communism and popularized
the term in their famous pamphlet The Communist
Manifesto.[26] Engels, who lived in Manchester,
observed the organization of the Chartist movement
(see History of British socialism), while Marx departed
from his university comrades to meet the proletariat in
France and Germany.[citation n

221. • Main article: History of communism
• In the late 19th century, Russian Marxism developed a
distinct character. The first major figure of Russian
Marxism was Georgi Plekhanov. Underlying the work of
Plekhanov was the assumption that Russia, less
urbanized and industrialized than Western Europe, had
many years to go before society would be ready for
proletarian revolution to occur, and a transitional period
of a bourgeois democratic regime would be required
to replace Tsarism with a socialist and later communist
society. (EB)[citation needed]

222. • In Russia, the 1917 October Revolution was the first time any party with an
avowedly Marxist orientation, in this case the Bolshevik Party, seizedstate
power. The assumption of state power by the Bolsheviks generated a great
deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx
predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations
laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was
one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely
illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly
stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeoisie
capitalism.[30] Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could
be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.
• The moderate Mensheviks opposed Lenin's Bolshevik plan for socialist
revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks'
successful rise to power was based upon the slogans "peace, bread, and
land" and "All power to the Soviets", slogans which tapped the massive
public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the
peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for
theSoviets.[citation needed]

223. • The usage of the terms "communism" and "socialism" shifted after 1917,
when the Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and
installed a single party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist
policies under Leninism.[citation needed] The Second International had
dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national parties
that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead
generally supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created
the Third International (Comintern) in 1919 and sent the Twenty-one
Conditions, which included democratic centralism, to all European socialist
parties willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of the French
Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party split in 1921 to form
theFrench Section of the Communist International (SFIC).[citation
needed] Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of
the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program
called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be
followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as
the development of a socialist economy. Ultimately, if their program held,
there would develop a harmonious classless society, with the withering
away of the state.[citation needed]
•
•

224. • A map of countries who declared themselves to be socialist states
under the Marxist-Leninist or Maoist definition (in other words,
"communist states") in 1980. The map also includes Communist
alignment: either to the Soviet Union, China or independent
• During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), the
Bolsheviks nationalized all productive property and imposed a policy
of war communism, which put factories and railroads under strict
government control, collected and rationed food, and introduced
some bourgeois management of industry. After three years of war
and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion, Lenin declared the New Economic
Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to give a "limited place for a limited
time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until 1928, when Joseph
Stalin achieved party leadership, and the introduction of the first Five
Year Plan spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil War, the
Bolsheviks formed in 1922 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.

225. • Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Communist parties
were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members
as the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved
by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely
subject to party discipline.[31]
• After World War II, Communists consolidated power in Eastern
Europe, and in 1949, the Communist Party of China (CPC) led
byMao Zedong established the People's Republic of China, which
would later follow its own ideological path of Communist
development.[citation needed] Cuba, North
Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola, and Mozambique were
among the other countries in the Third World that adopted or
imposed a pro-Communist government at some point.

226. • Marxism is a particular political
philosophy, economic and sociological worldview based upon a
materialist interpretation of history, a Marxist analysisof capitalism,
a theory of social change, and an atheist view of human liberation
derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The three
primary aspects of Marxism are:
• The dialectical and materialist concept of history —
Humankind's history is fundamentally that of the struggle
between social classes. The productive capacity of society is the
foundation of society, and as this capacity increases over time the
social relations of production, class relations, evolve through this
struggle of the classes and pass through definite stages (primitive
communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism). The legal, political,
ideological and other aspects (e.g. art) of society are derived from
these production relations as is the consciousness of the individuals
of which the society is composed.

227. • The critique of capitalism — Marx argues that in
capitalist society, an economic minority
(the bourgeoisie) dominate and exploit the working
class (proletariat) majority. Marx argues that
capitalism is exploitative, specifically the way in which
unpaid labor (surplus value) is extracted from the
working class (the labor theory of value), extending and
critiquing the work of earlier political economists
on value. He argued that while the production process is
socialized, ownership remains in the hands of the
bourgeoisie. This forms the fundamental contradiction of
capitalist society. Without the elimination of the fetter of
the private ownership of the means of production, human
society is unable to achieve further development.

228. .
• Advocacy of proletarian revolution — In order to
overcome the fetters of private property the working class must
seize political powerinternationally through a social
revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the
world and place the productive capacities of society
into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes
would be abolished and the material basis for all forms
of inequality between humankind would dissolve.
• Contemporarily, Karl Marx’s innovative analytical methods —
materialist dialectics, the labour theory of value, et cetera — are
applied in archaeology,anthropology,[1] media studies,[2] political
science, theater, history, sociological theory, cultural
studies, education, economics, geography, literary
criticism, aesthetics, critical psychology, and philosophy.[3]

229. • The term Classical Marxism denotes the theory
propounded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.[citation
needed] As such, Classical Marxism distinguishes
between “Marxism” as broadly perceived, and “what
Marx believed”; thus, in 1883, Marx wrote to the French
labour leader Jules Guesde and to Paul
Lafargue (Marx’s son-in-law) — both of whom claimed to
represent Marxist principles — accusing them of
“revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the
value of reformist struggle; from which derives the
paraphrase: “If that is Marxism, then I am not a
Marxist”.[4] To wit, the US Marx scholar Hal
Draper remarked, “there are few thinkers in modern
history whose thought has been so badly
misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike”.[5]

230. • Karl Heinrich Marx (5 May 1818—14 March 1883) was a greatly
influential German philosopher, political economist,
and socialist revolutionary, who analytically addressed the matters
of alienation and exploitation of the working class, the capitalist
mode of production, and historical materialism. He is famous for
analysing history in terms of class struggle, summarised in the initial
line introducing the Communist Manifesto(1848): “The history of all
hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. His ideas
were influential in his time, and it was greatly expanded by the
successful Bolshevik October Revolution of 1917 in Imperial Russia.
•
•

231. • Friedrich Engels, co-founder of Marxism.
• Friedrich Engels (28 November 1820–5 August 1895) was the
nineteenth century German political philosopher and Karl Marx’s co-
developer of communist theory. Marx and Engels met in September 1844;
discovering that they shared like views of philosophy and socialism, they
collaborated and wrote works such as Die heilige Familie (The Holy Family).
After the French deported Marx from France in January 1845, Engels and
Marx moved to Belgium, which then permitted greater freedom of
expression than other European countries; later, in January 1846, they
returned to Brussels to establish the Communist Correspondence
Committee.
• In 1847, they began writing The Communist Manifesto (1848), based upon
Engels’ The Principles of Communism; six weeks later, they published the
12,000-word pamphlet in February 1848. In March, Belgium expelled them,
and they moved to Cologne, where they published the Neue Rheinische
Zeitung, a politically radical newspaper. Again, by 1849, they had to leave
Cologne for London. The Prussian authorities pressured the British
government to expel Marx and Engels, but Prime Minister Lord John
Russell refused.

232. • After Karl Marx’s death in 1883, Friedrich Engels
became the editor and translator of Marx’s
writings. With the Origins of the Family, Private
Property, and the State (1884) —
analysing monogamous marriage as
guaranteeing male social domination of women,
a concept analogous, in communist theory, to
the capitalist class’s economic domination of the
working class — intellectually significant
contributions to feminist theoryand Marxist
feminism.

233. • Early intellectual influences
• Main article: Influences on Karl Marx
• Different types of thinkers influenced the development of Classical Marxism;
the primary influences derive from:
• German philosophers: Immanuel Kant, G. W. F. Hegel, Ludwig
Feuerbach et al.
• British political economists: Adam Smith & David Ricardo et al.
• French social theorists: Jean-Jacques Rousseau; Charles Fourier; Henri
de Saint-Simon; Pierre-Joseph Proudhon; Flora Tristan; Louis Blanc et al.
• and secondary influences derive from:
• Ancient materialism, e.g. Epicurus, Lucretius et al.
• Aristotle
• Giambattista Vico
• Lewis Morgan
• Charles Darwin

234. • Principal ideas
• These are the principal concepts of Marxism:
• [edit]Exploitation
• A person is exploited if he or she performs more labour than
necessary to produce the goods that he consumes; likewise, a
person is an exploiter if he or she performs less labour than is
necessary to produce the goods that he consumes.[6] Exploitation is
a matter of surplus labour — the amount of labour one performs
beyond what one receives in goods. Exploitation has been a socio-
economic feature of every class society, and is one of the principal
features distinguishing the social classes. The power of one social
class to control the means of productionenables its exploitation of
the other classes.

235. • In capitalism, the labour theory of value is the operative concern;
the value of a commodity equals the total labour time required to
produce it. Under that condition, surplus value (the difference
between the value produced and the value received by a labourer) is
synonymous with the term “surplus labour”; thus, capitalist
exploitation is realised as deriving surplus value from the worker.
• In pre-capitalist economies, exploitation of the worker was achieved
via physical coercion. In the capitalist mode of production, that result
is more subtly achieved; because the worker does not own the
means of production, he or she must voluntarily enter into an
exploitive work relationship with a capitalist in order to earn the
necessities of life. The worker's entry into such employment is
voluntary in that he or she chooses which capitalist to work for; the
worker must work or starve, thus exploitation is inevitable, and the
voluntarism of capitalist exploitation is illusory.

236. • Alienation
• Alienation denotes the estrangement of people
from their humanity (German: Gattungswesen,
“species-essence”, “species-being”), which is a
systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism,
the fruits of production belong to the employers,
who expropriate the surplus created by others,
and so generate alienated
labourers.[7] Alienation objectively describes the
worker’s situation in capitalism — his or her self-
awareness of this condition is unnecessary.

237. • [edit]Historical Materialism
• The historical materialist theory of history, also
synonymous to “the economic interpretation of
history” (a coinage by Eduard
Bernstein),[8] looks for the causes of societal
development and change in the collective ways
humans use to make the means for living. The
social features of a society (social classes,
political structures, ideologies) derive from
economic activity; “base and superstructure” is
the metaphoric common term describing this
historic condition.

238. • [edit]Base and superstructure
• The base and superstructure metaphor explains that the totality of
social relations regarding “the social production of their existence”
i.e. civil society forms a society’s economic base, from which rises
a superstructure of political and legal institutions i.e. political society.
The base corresponds to the social consciousness (politics, religion,
philosophy, etc.), and it conditions the superstructure and the social
consciousness. A conflict between the development of material
productive forces and the relations of production provokes social
revolutions, thus, the resultant changes to the economic base will
lead to the transformation of the superstructure.[9] This relationship
is reflexive; the base determines the superstructure, in the first
instance, and remains the foundation of a form of social organization
which then can act again upon both parts of the base and
superstructure, whose relationship is dialectical, not literal.[citation
needed][clarification needed]

239. • Historical periodisation
• Marx considered that these socio-economic conflicts have
historically manifested themselves as distinct stages (one
transitional) of development in Western Europe.[10]
• Primitive Communism: as in co-operative tribal societies.
• Slave Society: a development of tribal progression to city-state;
Aristocracy is born.
• Feudalism: aristocrats are the ruling class; merchants evolve into
capitalists.
• Capitalism: capitalists are the ruling class, who create and employ
the proletariat.
• Socialism: workers gain class consciousness, and via proletarian
revolution depose the capitalist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,
replacing it in turn with dictatorship of the proletariatthrough which
the socialization of the means of production can be realized.
• Communism: a classless and stateless society.

240. • Class
• The identity of a social class derives from its relationship to the means of
production; Marx describes the social classes in capitalist societies:
• Proletariat: “those individuals who sell their labour power, and who, in the
capitalist mode of production, do not own the means of production“.[citation
needed] The capitalist mode of production establishes the conditions
enabling the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat because the workers’
labour generates a surplus value greater than the workers’ wages.
• Bourgeoisie: those who “own the means of production” and buy labour
power from the proletariat, thus exploiting the proletariat; they subdivide as
bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie.
– Petit bourgeoisie are those who employ labourers, but who also work, i.e. small
business owners, peasant landlords, trade workers et al. Marxism predicts that
the continual reinvention of the means of production eventually would destroy the
petit bourgeoisie, degrading them from the middle class to the proletariat.

241. • Lumpenproletariat: criminals, vagabonds, beggars, et al.,
who have no stake in the economy, and so sell their
labour to the highest bidder.
• Landlords: an historically important social class who
retain some wealth and power.
• Peasantry and farmers: a disorganised class incapable
of effecting socio-economic change, most of whom
would enter the proletariat, and some become landlords.
• [edit]Class consciousness
• Class consciousness denotes the awareness — of itself
and the social world — that a social class possesses,
and its capacity to rationally act in their best interests;
hence, class consciousness is required before they can
effect a successful revolution.

242. • Ideology
• Without defining ideology,[11] Marx used the term to denote the
production of images of social reality; according to Engels, “ideology
is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is
true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces
impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not
be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or seeming
motive forces”.[12] Because the ruling class controls the society’s
means of production, the superstructure of society, the ruling social
ideas are determined by the best interests of said ruling class.
In The German Ideology, “the ideas of the ruling class are in every
epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material
force of society, is, at the same time, its ruling intellectual
force”.[13] Therefore, the ideology of a society is of most
importance, because it confuses the alienated classes and so might
create a false consciousness, such as commodity fetishism.[citation
needed]

243. • [edit]Political economy
• The term political economy originally
denoted the study of the conditions under
which economic production was organised
in the capitalist system. In Marxism,
political economy studies the means of
production, specifically of capital, and how
that is manifest as economic activity.

244. • Marxist schools of thought
• [edit]Marxism-Leninism
• Main article: Marxism-Leninism
• Note: this is a discussion of Marxism-Leninism as a school of
thought. For a discussion of its political practice, see
subsection Marxism#Marxism as a political practice below.
• At least in terms of adherents and the impact on the world stage,
Marxism-Leninism, also known colloquially as Bolshevism or
simply communism is the biggest trend within Marxism, easily
dwarfing all of the other schools of thought combined.[14] Marxism-
Leninism is a term originally coined by the CPSU in order to denote
the ideology that Vladimir Lenin had built upon the thought of Karl
Marx. There are two broad areas that have set apart Marxism-
Leninism as a school of thought.

245. • First, Lenin's followers generally view his additions to the body of
Marxism as the practical corollary to Marx's original theoretical
contributions of the 19th century; insofar as they apply under the
conditions of advanced capitalism that they found themselves
working in. Lenin called this time-frame the era of Imperialism. For
example, Joseph Stalin wrote that
• “Leninism grew up and took shape under the conditions of
imperialism, when the contradictions of capitalism had reached an
extreme point, when the proletarian revolution had become an
immediate practical question, when the old period of preparation of
the working class for revolution had arrived at and passed into a
new period, that of direct assault on capitalism.[15]”The most
important consequence of a Leninist-style theory of Imperialism is
the strategic need for workers in the industrialized countries to bloc
or ally with the oppressed nations contained within their respective
countries' colonies abroad in order to overthrow capitalism. This is
the source of the slogan

246. • “Workers and Oppressed Peoples of the World, Unite![16]”which
is Lenin's twist on the traditional socialist slogan.
• Second, the other distinguishing characteristic of Marxism-Leninism
is how it approaches the question of organization. Lenin believed
that the traditional model of the Social Democratic parties of the
time, which was a loose, multitendency organization was inadequate
for overthrowing the Tsarist regime in Russia. He proposed a
hardened cadre organization that disciplined itself under the model
of Democratic Centralism.
• Marxism-Leninism was closely associated with the figure of Joseph
Stalin until his death. Eventually after the death of Stalin, Nikita
Khrushchev became the leader of the Soviet Union, an act which
ultimately lead to the splintering of the Marxist-Leninism into several
competing schools of thought.

247. • Post-Stalin Moscow-aligned communism
• At the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,
Khrushchev made several ideological ruptures with his predecessor,
Joseph Stalin. First, Khrushchev denounced the so-called Cult of
Personality that had developed around Stalin, which ironically
enough Khrushchev had had a pivotal role in fostering decades
earlier. More importantly, however, Khrushchev rejected the
heretofore orthodox Marxist-Leninist tenet that class struggle
continues even under socialism. Rather, the State ought to rule in
the name of all classes. A related principle that flowed from the
former was the notion of peaceful co-existence, or that the newly-
emergent socialist bloc could peacefully compete with the capitalist
world, solely by developing the productive forces of society.

248. • [edit]Eurocommunism
• Beginning around the 1970s, various communist parties in Western
Europe, such as the Partito Comunista Italiano in Italy and
the Partido Comunista de España under Santiago Carillotried to hew
to a more independent line from Moscow. Particularly in Italy, they
leaned on the theories of Antonio Gramsci, despite the fact that
Gramsci happened to consider himself an orthodox Marxist-Leninist.
This trend went by the name Eurocommunism.
• [edit]Anti-revisionism
• There are many proponents of Marxist-Leninism who rejected the
theses of Khrushchev, particularly Marxists of the Third
World.[citation needed] They believed that Khrushchev was
unacceptably altering or "revising" the fundamental tenets of
Marxism-Leninism, a stance from which the label "anti-revisionist" is
derived. Typically, anti-revisionists refer to themselves simply as
Marxist-Leninists, although they may be referred to externally by the
following epithets.

249. • Left Communism
• Main article: Left Communism
• Left communism is the range of communist viewpoints held by the
communist left, which criticizes the political ideas of the Bolsheviks
from a position that is asserted to be more authentically Marxist and
proletarian than the views of Leninism held by the Communist
International after its first two congresses.
• Although she lived before left communism became a distinct
tendency, Rosa Luxemburg has been heavily influential for most left
communists, both politically and theoretically. Proponents of left
communism have included Herman Gorter, Anton Pannekoek, Otto
Rühle, Karl Korsch, Amadeo Bordiga, and Paul Mattick.
• Prominent left communist groups existing today include the
International Communist Current and the International Bureau for
the Revolutionary Party. Also, different factions from the old
Bordigist International Communist Party are considered left
communist organizations.

250. • [edit]Western Marxism
• Main article: Western Marxism
• Western Marxism is a term used to describe a wide variety of Marxist
theoreticians based in Western and Central Europe (and more recently North
America ), in contrast with philosophy in the Soviet Union, the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia or the People's Republic of China.
• [edit]Structural Marxism
• Main article: Structural Marxism
• Structural Marxism is an approach to Marxism based on structuralism, primarily
associated with the work of the French theorist Louis Althusser and his students. It
was influential in France during the late 1960s and 1970s, and also came to influence
philosophers, political theorists and sociologists outside of France during the 1970s.
• [edit]Neo-Marxism
• Main article: Neo-Marxism
• Neo-Marxism is a school of Marxism that began in the 20th century and hearkened
back to the early writings of Marx, before the influence of Engels, which focused
on dialectical idealismrather than dialectical materialism. It thus rejected economic
determinism being instead far more libertarian. Neo-Marxism adds Max Weber's
broader understanding of social inequality, such as status and power, to orthodox
Marxist though

251. • Post Marxism
• Main article: Post-Marxism
• Post-Marxism represents the theoretical work
of philosophers and social theorists who have built their theories
upon those of Marx and Marxists but exceeded the limits of those
theories in ways that puts them outside of Marxism. It begins with
the basic tenets of Marxism but moves away from the Mode of
Production as the starting point for analysis and includes factors
other than class, such as gender, ethnicity etc, and a reflexive
relationship between the base and superstructure.
• Marxism remains a powerful theory in some unexpected and
relatively obscure places, and is not always properly labeled as
"Marxism". For example, many Mexican and some American
archaeologists still employ a Marxist model to explain the Classic
Maya Collapse[citation needed] (c. 900 A.D.) - without mentioning
Marxism by name.

252. • [edit]Marxist Feminism
• Main article: Marxist feminism
• Marxist feminism is a sub-type of feminist theory which focuses on the
dismantling of capitalism as a way to liberate women. Marxist feminism
states that private property, which gives rise to economic inequality,
dependence, political confusion and ultimately unhealthy social relations
between men and women, is the root of women's oppression.
• According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies the individual is shaped
by class relations; that is, people's capacities, needs and interests are seen
to be determined by the mode of production that characterises the society
they inhabit. Marxist feminists see gender inequality as determined
ultimately by the capitalist mode of production. Gender oppression is class
oppression and women's subordination is seen as a form of class
oppression which is maintained (like racism) because it serves the interests
of capital and the ruling class. Marxist feminists have extended
traditional Marxist analysis by looking at domestic labour as well as wage
work in order to support their position.
• [edit]Marxism as a political practice

253. • Marxism as a political practice
• Part of a series on
Socialism Currents[show]Key topics and
issues[show]People[show]Organizations[show]Religious
socialism[show]Related topics[show]v • d • eSince Marx's death in 1883,
various groups around the world have appealed to Marxism as the
theoretical basis for their politics and policies, which have often proved to be
dramatically different and conflicting. One of the first major political splits
occurred between the advocates of 'reformism', who argued that the
transition to socialism could occur within existing bourgeois parliamentarian
frameworks, and communists, who argued that the transition to a socialist
society required a revolution and the dissolution of the capitalist state. The
'reformist' tendency, later known as social democracy, came to be dominant
in most of the parties affiliated to the Second International and these parties
supported their own governments in the First World War. This issue caused
the communists to break away, forming their own parties which became
members of the Third International.

254. • The following countries had governments at some point in the
twentieth century who at least nominally adhered to
Marxism: Albania, Afghanistan,Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Chile, China
, Republic of Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East
Germany, Ethiopia, Grenada, Hungary, Laos, Moldova,Mongolia, M
ozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, North
Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, the USSR and its republics, South
Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela,Vietnam. In addition, the Indian
states of Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal have had Marxist
governments. Some of these governments such as
inVenezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Moldova and parts of India have
been democratic in nature and maintained regular multiparty
elections, while most governments claiming to be Marxist in nature
have established authoritarian governments.
• Marxist political parties and movements have significantly declined
since the fall of the Soviet Union, with some exceptions, perhaps
most notablyNepal.

255. .
• Social Democracy
• Main article: Social Democracy
• Social
democracyPrecursors[show]Development[show]Polic
ies[show]Organizations[show]People[show]v • d • eSoc
ial democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the
late 19th and early 20th century. Many parties in the
second half of the 19th century described themselves as
social democratic, such as the British Social Democratic
Federation, and the Russian Social Democratic Labour
Party. In most cases these were revolutionary socialist or
Marxist groups, who were not only seeking to introduce
socialism, but also democracy in un-democratic
countries.

256. • The modern social democratic current came into being through a
break within the socialist movement in the early 20th century,
between two groups holding different views on the ideas of Karl
Marx. Many related movements, including pacifism, anarchism,
and syndicalism, arose at the same time (often by splitting from the
main socialist movement, but also by emerging of new theories.)
and had various quite different objections to Marxism. The social
democrats, who were the majority of socialists at this time, did not
reject Marxism (and in fact claimed to uphold it), but wanted
to reform it in certain ways and tone down their criticism of
capitalism. They argued that socialism should be achieved through
evolution rather than revolution. Such views were strongly opposed
by the revolutionary socialists, who argued that any attempt to
reform capitalism was doomed to fail, because the reformists would
be gradually corrupted and eventually turn into capitalists
themselves.

257. • Despite their differences, the reformist and revolutionary branches of
socialism remained united until the outbreak of World War I. The war
proved to be the final straw that pushed the tensions between them
to breaking point. The reformist socialists supported their respective
national governments in the war, a fact that was seen by the
revolutionary socialists as outright treason against the working
class (Since it betrayed the principle that the workers "have no
nation", and the fact that usually the lowest classes are the ones
sent into the war to fight, and die, putting the cause at the side).
Bitter arguments ensued within socialist parties, as for example
between Eduard Bernstein (reformist socialist) and Rosa
Luxemburg (revolutionary socialist) within the Social Democratic
Party of Germany (SPD). Eventually, after the Russian Revolution of
1917, most of the world's socialist parties fractured. The reformist
socialists kept the name "Social democrats", while the revolutionary
socialists began calling themselves "Communists", and soon formed
the modern Communist movement. (See also Comintern)

258. • Since the 1920s, doctrinal differences have
been constantly growing between social
democrats and Communists (who themselves
are not unified on the way to achieve socialism),
and Social Democracy is mostly used as a
specifically Central European label for Labour
Parties since then, especially in Germany and
the Netherlands and especially since the
1959Godesberg Program of the German SPD
that rejected the praxis of class struggle
altogether.
• [edit]Socialism

259. • The term "socialism" could be used to describe two
fundamentally different ideologies - democratic
socialism and Marxist-Leninist socialism. While Marxist-
Leninists (Trotskyists,Stalinists, and Maoists) are often
described as communists in the contemporary media,
they are not recognized as such academically or by
themselves. The Marxist-Leninists sought to work
towards the workers' utopia in Marxist ideology by first
creating a socialist state, which historically had almost
always been a single-party dictatorship. On the other
hand, democratic socialists attempt to work towards an
ideal state by social reform and are often little different
from social democrats, with the democratic socialists
having a more leftist stance.

260. • The Marxist-Leninist form of government has been in decline since
the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellite states. Very few
countries have governments which describe themselves as socialist.
As of 2007, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and the People's Republic of
China had governments in power which describe themselves
as socialist in the Marxist sense.
• On the contrary, electoral parties which describe themselves
as socialist or democratic socialist are on the rise, joined together by
international organizations such as the Socialist International and
the Fourth International. Parties described as socialist are currently
dominant in Third World democracies and serve as the ruling party
or the main opposition party in all European democracies. Eco-
socialism, and Green politics with a strong leftist tinge, are on the
rise in European democracies.

261. • The characterization of a party or government often has
little to do with its actual economical and social platform.
The government of mainland China, which describes
itself as socialist, allows a large private sector to flourish
and is socially conservative compared to most Western
democracies. A more specific example is universal
health-care, which is a trademark issue of many
European socialist parties but does not exist in mainland
China. Therefore, the historical and cultural aspects of a
movement must be taken into context in order for one to
arrive at an accurate conclusion of its political ideology
from its nominal characterization.

262. • Communism
• Part of the series onCommunism
Concepts[show]Aspects[show]Variants[show]Internationals[show]Peopl
e[show]Related topics[show]v • d • eMain article: Communist state
• A number of states declared an allegiance to the principles of Marxism and
have been ruled by self-described Communist Parties, either as a single-
party state or a single list, which includes formally several parties, as was
the case in the German Democratic Republic. Due to the dominance of the
Communist Party in their governments, these states are often called
"communist states" by Western political scientists. However, they have
described themselves as "socialist", reserving the term "communism" for a
future classless society, in which the state would no longer be necessary
(on this understanding of communism, "communist state" would be
an oxymoron) – for instance, the USSR was the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics. Marxists contend that, historically, there has
never been any communist country.

263. • Communist governments have historically been
characterized by state ownership of productive
resources in a planned economy and sweeping
campaigns of economic restructuring such
as nationalization of industry and land reform (often
focusing on collective farming or state farms.) While they
promote collective ownership of the means of
production, Communist governments have been
characterized by a strong state apparatus in which
decisions are made by the ruling Communist Party.
Dissident 'authentic' communists have characterized the
Soviet model as state socialism or state capitalism.

264. • Marxism-Leninism
• Main articles: Marxism-Leninism and Leninism
• Marxism-Leninism, strictly speaking, refers to the version of Marxism
developed by Vladimir Lenin known as Leninism[citation needed].
However, in various contexts, different (and sometimes opposing)
political groups have used the term "Marxism-Leninism" to describe
the ideologies that they claimed to be upholding. The core
ideological features of Marxism-Leninism are those of Marxism and
Leninism, that is to say, belief in the necessity of a violent overthrow
of capitalism through communist revolution, to be followed by
a dictatorship of the proletariat as the first stage of moving
towards communism, and the need for a vanguard party to lead
the proletariat in this effort. Those who view themselves as Marxist-
Leninists, however, vary with regards to the leaders and thinkers
that they choose to uphold as progressive (and to what
extent). Maoists tend to downplay the importance of all other
thinkers in favour of Mao Zedong, whereasHoxhaists repudiate Mao.

265. • Leninism holds that capitalism can only be overthrown by revolutionary
means; that is, any attempts to reform capitalism from within, such
as Fabianism and non-revolutionary forms ofdemocratic socialism, are
doomed to fail. The first goal of a Leninist party is to educate the proletariat,
so as to remove the various modes of false
consciousness the bourgeois have instilled in them, instilled in order to
make them more docile and easier to exploit economically, such
as religion and nationalism. Once the proletariat has gained class
consciousness the party will coordinate the proletariat's total might to
overthrow the existing government, thus the proletariat will seize all political
and economic power. Lastly the proletariat (thanks to their education by the
party) will implement a dictatorship of the proletariat which would bring upon
them socialism, the lower phase of communism. After this, the party would
essentially dissolve as the entire proletariat is elevated to the level of
revolutionaries.
• The dictatorship of the proletariat refers to the absolute power of the
working class. It is governed by a system of proletarian direct democracy, in
which workers hold political power through local councils known as soviets.

266. • Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883) was
a German[2] philosopher, political economist, historian, political
theorist, sociologist,communist, and revolutionary, whose ideas are
credited as the foundation of modern communism. Marx
summarized his approach in the first line of chapter one of The
Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: "The history of all hitherto
existing society is the history of class struggles."
• Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems,
would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its
destruction.[3] Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he
believed socialism would, in its turn, replace capitalism, and lead to
a stateless,classless society called pure communism. This would
emerge after a transitional period called the "dictatorship of the
proletariat": a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or
"workers' democracy".[4][5] In section one of The Communist
Manifesto Marx describesfeudalism, capitalism, and the role internal
social contradictions play in the historical process:

267. • Influences on Marx's thought
• Main article: Influences on Karl Marx
• Marx's thought demonstrates strong influences from:
• Hegel's dialectical method and historical orientation;
• the classical political economy of Adam Smith and David
Ricardo;
• French socialist and sociological thought, in particular
the thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Henri de Saint-
Simon and Charles Fourier;
• earlier German philosophical materialism, particularly
that of Ludwig Feuerbach
• the solidarity with the working class of Friedrich Engels

268. • Marx's view of history, which came to be called historical
materialism (controversially adapted as the philosophy
of dialectical materialism by Engels and Lenin) certainly
shows the influence of Hegel's claim that one should
view reality (and history) dialectically. Hegel believed
that human history is characterized by the movement
from the fragmentary toward the complete and the real
(which was also a movement towards greater and
greaterrationality). This progressive unfolding of the
Absolute involves gradual, evolutionary accretion which
culminates in revolutionary leaps—episodal upheavals
against the existing status quo. For example, Hegel
strongly opposed slavery in the United States during his
lifetime, and he envisioned a time when Christian nations
would eliminate it from their civilization.

269. • Marx's critiques of German philosophical idealism, British political
economy, and French socialism depended heavily on the influence
of Feuerbach and Engels. Hegel had thought in idealist terms, and
Marx sought to rewrite dialectics in materialist terms. He wrote that
Hegelianism stood the movement of reality on its head, and that one
needed to set it upon its feet. Marx's acceptance of this notion
of materialist dialectics which rejected Hegel's idealism was greatly
influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach. In The Essence of Christianity,
Feuerbach argued that God is really a creation of man and that the
qualities people attribute to God are really qualities of humanity.
Accordingly, Marx argued that it is the material world that is real and
that our ideas of it are consequences, not causes, of the world.
Thus, like Hegel and other philosophers, Marx distinguished
between appearances and reality. But he did not believe that the
material world hides from us the "real" world of the ideal; on the
contrary, he thought that historically and socially specific ideology
prevented people from seeing the material conditions of their lives
clearly.

270. • Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (German pronunciation: [ˈɡeɔʁk
ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈheːɡəl]) (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831)
was aGerman philosopher, one of the creators of German Idealism.
His historicist and idealist account of reality as a whole
revolutionized European philosophy and was an important precursor
to Continental philosophy and Marxism.
• Hegel developed a comprehensive philosophical framework, or
"system", to account in an integrated and developmental way for the
relation ofmind and nature, the subject and object of knowledge,
and psychology, the state, history, art, religion and philosophy. In
particular, he developed a concept of mind or spirit that manifested
itself in a set of contradictions and oppositions that it
ultimately integrated and united, without eliminating either pole or
reducing one to the other. Examples of such contradictions include
those between nature and freedom, and
between immanence and transcendence.

271. • Friedrich Engels
Friedrich EngelsFull nameFriedrich EngelsBorn28 November 1820
Barmen, PrussiaDied5 August 1895 (aged 74)
London, England
Era19th-century philosophyRegionWestern
PhilosophySchoolMarxismMain interestsPolitical
philosophy, Politics,Economics, class struggle,capitalismNotable ideasCo-
founder of Marxism (with Karl Marx), alienation and exploitation of the
worker, historical materialismInfluenced
by[show]Influenced[show]Signature
• Friedrich Engels (German pronunciation: [ˈɛŋəls]; 28 November 1820 – 5
August 1895) was a German social scientist, author, political
theorist,philosopher, and father of communist theory, alongside Karl Marx.
• Together they produced The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Engels also
edited the second and third volumes of Das Kapital after Marx's death

272. • Engels read the philosophy of Hegel
• his views on the "grim future of capitalism and the
industrial age", outlined in his first book The Condition of
the Working Class in England in 1844.[1
• From 1845 to 1848, Engels and Marx lived in Brussels,
spending much of their time organizing the
city's German workers. Shortly after their arrival, they
contacted and joined the underground German
Communist League and were commissioned by the
League to write a pamphlet explaining the principles of
communism. This became the The Manifesto of the
Communist Party, better known as the Communist
Manifesto. It was first published on 21 February 1848.[2]
• [edit]Return to Prussia

273. • During February 1848, there was a revolution in France that
eventually spread to other Western European countries. This event
caused Engels & Marx to go back to their home country of Prussia,
specifically the city of Cologne. While living in Cologne, they created
and served as editors for a new daily newspaper called the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung.[6]
• However, during the June 1849 Prussian coup d'état the newspaper
was suppressed. After the coup, Marx lost his Prussian citizenship,
was deported, and fled to Paris and then London. Engels stayed in
Prussia and took part in an armed uprising in South Germany as
an aide-de-campin the volunteer corps of August Willich.[14] When
the uprising was crushed, Engels managed to escape by traveling
through Switzerland as arefugee and returned to England.[2]
• [edit]Back in Manchester

274. • Once Engels made it to Britain, he decided to re-enter the
commercial firm where his father held shares in order to help
support Marx. He hated this work intensely but knew that his friend
needed the support.[15][16] He started off as an office clerk, the
same position he held in his teens, but eventually worked his way up
to become a partner in 1864. Five years later, Engels retired from
the business to focus more on his studies.[6]
• At this time, Marx was living in London but they were able to
exchange ideas through daily correspondence. In 1870, Engels
moved to London where he and Marx lived until Marx's death in
1883.[2] His London home at this time and until his death was 122
Regent's Park Road, Primrose Hill, NW1.[17] Marx's first London
residence was a cramped apartment at 28 Dean Street, Soho. From
1856, he lived at 9 Grafton Terrace,Kentish Town, and then in a
tenement at 41 Maitland Park Road from 1875 until his death.[18]
• [edit]Later years

275. • After Marx's death, Engels devoted much of his remaining years to
editing Marx's unfinished volumes of Capital. However, he also
contributed significantly to other areas. Engels made an argument
using anthropological evidence of the time to show
that family structures have changed over history, and that the
concept of monogamous marriage came from the necessity within
class society for men to control women to ensure their own children
would inherit their property. He argued a future communist society
would allow people to make decisions about their relationships free
from economic constraints. One of the best examples of Engels'
thoughts on these issues are in his work The Origin of the Family,
Private Property and the State.
• Engels died of throat cancer in London in 1895.[19] Following
cremation at Brookwood Cemetery near Woking, his ashes were
scattered off Beachy Head, near Eastbourne as he had
requested.[19][20]

276. • Ideological legacy
• Tristram Hunt argues that Engels has become a
convenient scapegoat, too easily blamed for the state
crimes of the Soviet Union, Communist Southeast
Asia and China. "Engels is left holding the bag of 20th
century ideological extremism," Hunt writes, "while Marx
is rebranded as the acceptable, postpolitical seer of
global capitalism."[11] Hunt largely exonerates Engels
stating that "in no intelligible sense can Engels or Marx
bear culpability for the crimes of historical actors carried
out generations later, even if the policies were offered up
in their honor."[11]

277. • Paul Thomas, of the University of California, Berkeley, claims that
while Engels had been the most important and dedicated facilitator
and diffuser of Marx's writings, he significantly altered Marx's intents
as he held, edited and released in a finished form, and
commentated on them. Engels attempted to fill gaps in Marx's
system and to extend it to other fields. He stressed in
particular Historical Materialism, assigning it a character of scientific
discovery and a doctrine, indeed forming Marxism as such. A case
in point is Anti-Dühring, which supporters of socialism like its
detractors treated as an encompassing presentation of Marx's
thought. And while in his extensive correspondence with German
socialists Engels honestly presented his own secondary place in the
couple's intellectual relationship, Russian communists who had no
available direct evidence, raised Engels up with Marx and conflated
their thoughts as if they were necessarily congruous. Soviet Marxists
then developed this tendency to the state doctrine of Dialectical
Materialism.[21]

278. • Major works
• [edit]The Holy Family (1844)
• Part of a series onMarxist theory Theoretical works[show]Social
sciences[show]Economics[show]History[show]Philosophy[show]
People[show]Criticism[show]Categories[show] Communism
portal
• v • d • e
• The Holy Family was a book written by Marx & Engels in November
1844. The book is a critique on the Young Hegelians and their trend
of thought which was very popular in academic circles at the time.
The title was a suggestion by the publisher and is meant as a
sarcastic reference to the BauerBrothers and their supporters.[22]
• The book created a controversy with much of the press and
caused Bruno Bauer to attempt to refute the book in an article which
was published in Wigand's Vierteljahrsschrift in 1845. Bauer claimed
that Marx and Engels misunderstood what he was trying to say.
Marx later replied to his response with his own article that was
published in the journal Gesellschaftsspiegel in January 1846. Marx
also discussed the argument in chapter 2 of The German
Ideology.[22]
• [edit]The Condition of the Working Class in England in
1844 (1844)

279. • Main article: The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844
• The Condition of the Working Class is a detailed description and analysis of
the appalling conditions of the working class in Britain and Ireland during
Engels' stay in England. It was considered a classic in its time and still
widely available today. This work also had many seminal thoughts on the
state of socialism and its development.
• [edit]Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science (1878)
• Main article: Anti-Dühring
• Popularly known as Anti-Dühring, Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in
Science is a detailed critique of the philosophical positions of Eugen
Dühring, a German philosopher and critic of Marxism. In the course of
replying to Dühring, Engels reviews recent advances in science and
mathematics and seeks to demonstrate the way in which the concepts of
dialectics apply to natural phenomena. Many of these ideas were later
developed in the unfinished work, Dialectics of Nature. The last section
of Anti-Dühring was later edited and published under the separate
title, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

280. • [edit]Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880)
• Main article: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
• In what Engels presented as an extraordinarily popular
piece,[23] Engels critiques the utopian socialists, such as Fourier
and Owen, and provides an explanation of the socialist framework
for understanding capitalism.
• [edit]The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the
State (1884)
• Main article: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
• The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State is an
important and detailed seminal work connecting capitalism with what
Engels argues is an ever changing institution - the family. It was
written when Engels was 64 years of age and at the height of
his intellectual power and contains a comprehensive historical view
of the family in relation to the issues ofclass, female subjugation
and private property