Comparative Politics

 

                                                                                High Freedom

Anarchism	Liberalism
Right Wing Extremism	Right Wing Basic
No Authority; No Private Property	Democracy
Left Wing Basic	Left Wing Extremism
Communism	Fascism/Kingship/Dictatorship

Total Authority	Total Authority
Highly structural	Highly structural
No Competition	No Competition
Work For State	Work For State
No Property except for the leaders	Private Property only for the chosen
Inequality is the result	Inequality is the result

                                                                                     Low Freedom

 

The University of California at Berkley ran an article last year where a few professors in Political Science issued a correction on the study of historical movements in the world as they were viewed against the backdrop of left vs. right. University of California, Berkley, one of America’s première institutions in the field of biology, ecology and mathematics, is widely known to be the furthest left-wing institution on the west coast. This is lieu of the fact that many of Americas’ historical protests were known to have been stage by the University. The professors came to an agreement that what is termed leftism in history was in fact rightism. For example, The Soviet Union, Communist China, and historic leftist leaders such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Hilter, Mao Tse-tung and Karl Marx etc…were all right-wingers. People could not understand the study of comparative politics and many became upset forging a PR campaign against the school.

 

This is because Comparative politics is not Philosophy ( ‘truisms’) and has three major divisions that are argued over: Culture, Economic, and Institutions. For a cultural perspective, they were right in the assessment. What all these players had in common was varying degrees of racism and social inequality. What the University of California at Berkley wanted desperately to show the world was that leftism did not equal the monumental statistics of death toll equated with the 20^th Century: Over 100,000,000 people died because of government blunders in communism and dictatorships ( China, Soviet Union, Laos, Germany, N. Korea, Vietnam). To get around this figure the rightwing would have to be blamed so the university took the social rout in comparative polices to assess its data. This was based solely on discrimination only. People believe that Communism fosters equality? This is true only at the economic level. However, racism is a cultural factor and China for example was racist against other races during communism. For example, a westerner could not go to China and live under Mao’s realm. The same can be said for Hitler’s Germany, Pol Pots Laos, Lenin’s’ Russia and Ho Chi-Minh’s Vietnam. To further prove this point one of there prime examples of rightism was George Washington who also made the list. Why? Because he had slaves. Tomas Jefferson made the list also. This was a cultural inequality and not an institutional comparison. This is why there are ongoing arguments to what is left and what is right. Comparative politics looks at three definitive data points to asses its claims.  These necessarily do not always match up. Most people judge institutions as the number one factor in comparative politics which means that Communism and Socialism, central state control ( Big government in degrees) are left verses individual freedom ( Less government in degrees) is right-wing.

 

In the classroom of universities all over the world the lines to the argument will become blurred. That means there is a tendency of guilt because of the ‘seductive’ ( Nostradamus’s wording)  lure for the idea of social equality that is proposed in socialism and communism institutions need to be corrected in the eyes of history. That usually indicated revisionism or not telling the facts. Leftist in the teaching positions across the earth champion the social equality value that is linked to leftist policies, yet they just don’t want all the negative stigma of the death toll that is attached to their political leanings.

 

•  Lesser explosive terms for racism can be insular, yet insure can also mean non-racial implications.

 

Markets:

1. Sellers seek to create products that will be in demand.

2. Buyers seek to buy the best or most goods at the lowest price.

3. Markets are the medium through which buyers and sellers exchange goods.

4. Markets emerge spontaneously and are not easily controlled by the state.

5. Capitalism forces competition which brings better products. (Profit incentive)

6. Force working conditions fosters garbage. (no incentive ‘so who cares’ attitude)

7. Individuals run the market then great care of product at the highest values  - to be the best product because best products sells.

8. Governments run the market great inefficiency because of less oversight and life terms of job position cause ‘so who cares’ attitude in many individuals.

 

 

Trade:

 

Why regulate trade?

1. To generate state revenue

2. To foster local industry

3. To protect local jobs

4. To keep wealth in the country.

 

Why not regulate trade?

1. To promote Competition ( better products)

2. To keep costs of goods low.

3. To stimulate domestic innovation in areas of comparative advantage.

 

 

This is something that is linked to right-wing capitalism at its basic nature because at its heart is competition in the economic realm. Not everyone is as talented as others.

 

Liberalism: Favors a limited state role in society and economic activity; emphasizes a high degree of personal freedom over social equality.

 

Social democracy: Supports private property and markets but believes that state has a strong role to play in regulating the economy and providing benefits to the public; seeks to balance freedom and equality.

 

Fascism: Stresses a low degree of freedom of both personal freedom and equality in order to achieve a powerful state.

 

Communism: Emphasizes limited personal freedom and a strong state in order to achieve social equality; property is wholly owned by the state and market forces are eliminated; state takes on task of production and other economic decisions.

 

Anarchy: Stresses the elimination of the state and private property as a  way to achieve both freedom and equality for all; Believes that a high degree of personal freedom and social equality is possible.

 

 Political attitudes

 

 

 

Radicalism is usually defined as a belief in dramatic often revolutionary change of the political order: Economic, Social and Institution. Radicals in simplicity is defined as changing for the sake of Change. For example, California in the early to late 1960s was one of the best public school systems on earth ( national assessment testing results). The radicals in the Teachers Association and other educational overlords decided to change the basic teaching fundamentals of the classroom: Introducing different methods into the instructional methods of teaching. This was done on purely a radical leftist belief that change is good for change itself. The results after twenty plus years (national assessment testing results) show that California is now the third or fourth worst region in the first and second world countries in education. This was called a radical revolutionary change in the way we tech our children. One of the other examples that still goes on today is instructions for the students and the teachers. For example, the introduction may say to the teacher try not to tell the students to much of the material on the subject. And the not to the children will say ‘try to imagine you do not know anything about calculating and you want to invent a math field called statistics’ ( or algebra). The book will only give about one example per section and no back book checking for practicing working out formulas. The teacher is told not to help you out by the books instructions.  The results is that teachers fail the students and the district chides the teachers because the government money is dolled out to how many students fill up the classroom. This means that the teacher’s teach less vigorous classes and the students are pushed through the system – thus the low scores. A recent assessment came out that two-thirds of the southern California population were super illiterate. So from the sixties where California rated the highest in the world ( at one time) to notably the most backward of educational systems now in the world we see that the left in its political attitude caused the failure – termed radical.

 

Reactionary is usually defined as a belief in sober non-dramatic changes. “If it is not broke than do not fix it.” This is a right-wing approach. Both radicals and reactionaries use violence to get what they want. For example, right-wing reactionaries was used when England’s Parliament enacted the taxations laws on the colonies of America and they began violence by sending in armed enforcers and the colonist reacted with a revolution that emancipated them from their mother country.

 

Economy

 

	Liberalism	Social Democracy	Mercantilism New Imperialism	Communism
Role of the State in the economy	Little; minimal welfare state	Some state ownership, regulation; large welfare state	Much state ownership or direction; small welfare state	Total state ownership; extensive welfare state
Role of the Market	Low	Important but not sacrosanct	Limited	none
State capacity and autonomy	Low	Moderate	High	Very high
Importance of equality	Low	High	Low	High
How is policy made	Pluralism	Corporatism	State	State/Party
Possible flaws	Inequality, monopolies	Expense of welfare state, inefficiency	Can tend toward authoritarianism, can distort market	Authoritarianism and inefficiency
Examples	US,UK,	Western Europe ( Germany, Sweden)	Japan, South Korea, India	Cuba, Soviet Union , China