Charlie Chaplin Modern Times

On December 7^th lecture Professor LaVaque-Manty alluded to the film Modern Times by Charlie Chaplin (1936). Although filmed some time after Karl Marx and Friedech Hegel’s The German Ideology (1845) and The Communist Manifesto (1848), Chaplin’s first talkie cites some Marxist concerns. Modern Times displays Marx’s idea of alienation and the worker being part of the machine to exhibit the lower-class struggle during the Great Depression

As stated in lecture, Chaplin presents an extreme and comical interpretation of Marx’s concept of alienation.  At the beginning of the film, Chaplin’s character is mindlessly screwing in cogs without being allowed the satisfaction of seeing the end product. Marx describes this isolation as the, “material life appears as the end, and labor, the producer of material life…appears as means” (796). The protagonist is only a source for the machine, feeding it, instead of the machine being used by the worker to create something. This idea is reiterated further in the next scene of a machine being used to feed Chaplin in order to decrease his lunch break. Because of the desperate times of the depression and the structure of capitalism, Chaplin’s character has little choice but to submit to, “the existing totality of productive forces not merely to achieve self-activity but to secure their very existence” (796). In order to survive, the character develops “individual capacities corresponding to the material instruments of production” (796). Marx’s concept of appropriation is shown humorously as the main worker is unable to stop his hand jerking motion. His degree of appropriation has reached such an extent that he is sent to the insane asylum to get rehabilitated. As stated, “the isolation of individuals and the particular private gain of any individual have become accidental” (797), meaning that it is surprising if any worker, including the character of Chaplin’s film,  actually benefits from his work.

In addition to the Marx’s alienation theory, the idea of workers being only fractions of a machine is also displayed in Modern Times. Chaplin’s character, although comically, physically displays this “cog in the machine” belief by being rolled through moving gears in the large machine. He is, as Marx suggests, “an appendage of the machine” (802). Furthermore, Marx argues that the laborers direct their attacks, “not against the bourgeois condition of production, but against the instruments themselves” (802). Chaplin’s character is unable to stand up to his bosses but does manage to destroy a hefty bit of machinery as he runs from the police. Also, Chaplin shows the idea of humans as just materials when the woman of the film is thrown aside as an orphan, “like a commodity…exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market” (802). The hunger of her family or herself is of little consequence to the capitalists.

Ultimately the alienation and dehumanization of laborers not only degrades their labor but also their means of life. Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times displays this merging of industry and individual satirically but also utilizes important concepts of Marxism.

Read Full Post »

Identity Theft: Security vs. Liberty

Every decision in life is a trade off, whether or not you take the bus or walk, what type of clothing you wear, whether you study or go out.  All decisions come with consequence. Hobbes mused about a more serious tradeoff in many of his writings, a tradeoff that is faced regularly by sovereigns governing the commonwealth.  Remove the freedoms of its citizens, or fall into a State of Nature.  When a government takes away some freedoms of its citizens one could argue that the population is generally more secure and less vulnerable to the chaos of the State of Nature. Hobbes believed that governments were under a “moral, not legislative obligation” to keep their people safe.  He believed that there was a “constant war” without regulation and that every sovereign was faced with a decision.  Keep his commonwealth safe and limit the freedoms man is naturally born with, or allow his commonwealth to regress into a dystopic State of Nature. In the 21^st century this same conflict presents itself in the area of personal finance, people have gained greater, easier, and more efficient access to their own financial information through e banking. This places our current government in a dilemma. Should banking be limited to secure, face-to-face transactions that eliminate a large portion of the risk for identity theft? Or should we continue as we are, in a vulnerable society of e transactions?

Hobbes favored an all-powerful monarch over any other form of government to regulate a nation, as well as the security of said Leviathan over the constant war of the State of Nature.  While Hobbes believed that every man had a right to everything, the need for self-preservation was his first law of nature.  In accordance with this fundamental law, people take all kinds of precautions to preserve their identity.  From shredding sensitive documents to the safeguards (both cyber and otherwise) put in place by institutions that regularly access their customers’ personal financial information.  In spite of these precautions, identity theft is the fastest growing type of cyber crime due to its lucrative results, high level of anonymity, and relative ease.  In 2005 alone, over 42 million Americans became susceptible to identity theft through malicious attacks on databases holding sensitive financial information.  This recent rise in identity thefts has coincided with the growing popularity of Internet banking as well as developments that have made technology easier to use than ever.

While it may be up to the individual citizen to regulate and protect themselves in this situation, Sean Hoar, a top US attorney for cyber-crime recently wrote that he believes the two most pressing needs in the fight against identity theft are the establishment of a national response system and a national threat and vulnerability reduction system for cyber-crime.  Under their moral obligation to keep their citizens safe, the government must take the steps outlined by Hoar to police the Internet against the rapidly rising threat of identity theft.

While there is no cure-all solution to the problem of identity theft, the issue remains a pressing concern.  This modern problem presents current sovereigns with the same dilemma that was presented during Hobbes’ day: keep the commonwealth secure, or allow them uninhibited freedom and the risks that come with it.

Read Full Post »

Machiavellianism in a Democracy

During the 1500s, the main form of government in Europe was a monarchy: a king who solely ruled his kingdom and was supported by a group of nobles. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote his famous book The Prince based on this feudal system, teaching what he believed to be basic principles of governance for a ruler. In this book, he posits that it is better for a prince to be feared than loved and should stay in power at all costs, because they have the power to do anything necessary for the betterment of the state. Certain aspects of Machiavellian ideologies are slightly apparent in the offices of the President, congressmen, and even the people of the United States. However, the laws prevent anyone from becoming Machiavelli’s “Prince” by establishing a system of checks and balances of power.

The majority of Machiavelli’s concepts can be applied to the President as he is the foremost leader of the nation. Above all else, Machiavelli believes that a capable leader should remain in power at all costs. Many presidents share this desire and are willing to go to extreme measures to stay in office. This is illustrated by the millions of dollars a candidate will spend on his campaign each term. With his vast amount of influential power, the President has the ability to continually approve or prevent bills from passing. His agenda for the nation can be accomplished through various methods such as veto power and pardoning prisoners.

Moreover, congressmen have also been known to get their hands dirty in order to see a bill passed or to maintain their image. These actions are deemed acceptable in Machiavelli’s eyes as long as the congressmen are committed to benefiting the state. Unlike the President, however, they do not possess the level of authority required to manifest all of their objectives for the state.

In any democratic society, the people hold the future of politicians in their votes. This power may resemble Machiavelli’s Prince, but the people have no subjects, methods of enforcing their will and don’t possess the power to control the majority of governmental issues. An argument may be made that the people are their own subjects, yet this argument presents many issues concerning the practicality of enforcing the people’s will upon themselves. The same case can be made concerning their power over politicians: they may have some influence on who gets into power, but there is not a strong enough argument to say they are the “prince.”

A democracy differs from Machiavelli’s monarchy in that the President and congressmen operate by terms and must be reelected. These reelections by the people make it necessary for politicians to find favor in their eyes. This notion contradicts Machiavelli’s belief that it is better to be feared than to be loved. In his opinion, the subjection of the people will lead to their love for their leader.  However, modern day politicians in America do not have this option because they cannot simply subject the people. Furthermore, even the President can be impeached. The law creates a boundary that a prince in the 1500s would not have encountered because, essentially, he was the law. The President cannot simply carry out his will for the state as he sees fit, but instead must operate under the confines of the law. Similarly, congressmen possess even less power than the President so this idea of legal constraints applies to them in an even greater sense.

Machiavelli’s “Prince” can never be clearly established in America’s democratic society because of the laws put in place that give power to each branch of government and the people as well. Nevertheless, his theories will continue to assist the analysis of politicians today and their methods of gaining and retaining power.

Read Full Post »

Hobbesian Government in Zimbabwe

Political Theorists continually question the practicality of Hobbesian theory in modern day societies. They ask if his concept of a government based on a sovereign is applicable to nations today. Zimbabwe has a government that generally appears to follow Thomas Hobbes’ theory, yet there remain certain aspects of the current President’s rule that differ from his theory, causing the downfall of the country. In this post, I will analyze several similarities between the Hobbesian theory of sovereignty and the current government of Zimbabwe; additionally, I will examine the extent to which the Zimbabwean situation deviates from this theory.

Zimbabwe gained its independence in 1980, after which Robert Mugabe immediately won a landslide victory in the first ever democratic elections. Since that time, Mugabe has caused hyperinflation that has destroyed the economy. This is because he chose to print astronomical amounts of money in order to pay off the national debt, which causes the value of existing money to decrease dramatically. He has also caused a lack of foreign exchange when he confiscated most of the farmland that led to a regression of agricultural exports. In an effort to make Zimbabwe’s cities appear more modern to the rest of the world, the President evicted the poor out of their homes in the city. Moreover, the life expectancy rate has dropped from 60 in 1990 to 37 in 2008. Despite this economic depression, Mugabe never left power. He began to threaten voters and created a one-party system. In the 2008 elections, Mugabe’s opposing candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, won the majority of votes but due to the small margin of victory a runoff election took place. Tsvangirai withdrew from the runoff election after receiving multiple threats from Mugabe’s supporters and violence from the police against Tsvangirai supporters.   

On the surface, this situation may seem to correlate with Hobbes’ idea of a sovereign solely governing a nation. There is a solitary ruler that originally came to power by the mutual consent of the people. Hobbes states that “no man that hath sovereign power can justly be put to death, or otherwise in any manner by his subjects punished.” This sovereign, according to Hobbesian theory, is unimpeachable. Therefore, the current opinion of the people does not matter. However, the duties of the sovereign entail “the preserving of peace and security” and creating a stable environment – obligations that Robert Mugabe has not fulfilled. Instead, he has established one of the most economically instable and impoverished nations in the world. According to Hobbes, a sovereign “may commit iniquity; but not injustice” and clearly Robert Mugabe has committed injustices. The citizens no longer endorse their leader due to his inadequacy and, in actuality; their lives have been threatened if they chose to vote for a candidate other than Mugabe. Numerous men, women, and children are left homeless in the countryside and are dying daily from starvation – characteristics similar to a Hobbesian state of nature. The purpose of a sovereign is to draw the people out of the state of nature, not cause them to digress back into it. Mugabe’s time of rule does not properly reflect Hobbes’ idea of a sovereign due to his incapability of providing security and solidarity for the country.

There are not a large number of governments today that even slightly resemble a Hobbesian system. However, the structures that have similarities appear to have negative outcomes such as Zimbabwe or North Korea. Therefore, can we assume that Hobbes’ theory of government necessarily leads to futile societies?  We may, however, perceive that a government must perfectly follow Hobbes’ theory, with no discrepancies, in order for the country to be successful.

Read Full Post »

Our Government and the Neo-Classical Model

Throughout history the president of the U. S. has always been judged, and held responsible, by the public for ever thing he does.  This is still the case today.  Since the mid 1930s things such as approval ratings, which measure a random sample of American’s opinion of the President, have existed.  If the President is making mistakes, his approval ratings will drop, and conversely, if the President is making the populous happy, his approval rating will rise.  Looking over some of my old notes I saw I had written down “success = glory, failure = blame” in the middle of a bulleted list under “Neo-Classical Model.”  Reading over this, I kind of got the idea that a modern presidency can be classified as successful or unsuccessful by the Neo-Classical Model of Michael Walzer’s Dirty Hands.

I remember talking about how the Neo-Classical model seemed impractical in Section; however, the more I think about the model the more it makes sense to me.  I think that success = glory and failure = blame is a perfect model for the judging the President.  Within the Neo-Classical model, success or failure are measured by utilitarianism for the state, to an extent.  This means that a President is successful if the ends justify the means for the state or country.  Finally, the Neo-Classical model has only one right answer, and morality is more or less underscored.

Part of the problem with the Neo-Classical model is that it isn’t really fair to the person being judged to have clean or dirty hands.  The Neo-Classical model doesn’t do a good job when determining whether one’s hands are clean or dirty.  Instead, the Model does a good job determining the success or failure of someone.  Failure = blame is the same exact thing as “as soon as you screw up, you are blamed.”  The failure may not even be an individual’s fault, yet they are still blamed, and subsequently have dirty hands.  I think this is kind of how approval ratings end up reading.  A president’s approval rating drops if he makes poor decisions for the country, and rise if he makes good decisions for the country.

I think that the easiest example to look at using this model is Iraq.  Iraq has been very expensive for our military, but more importantly, incredibly taxing on Iraq.  Furthermore there were no weapons of mass destruction, which was our main purpose for invading Iraq.  As a result of what happened in Iraq, former President Bush’s approval rating dropped.  Iraq was expensive for the military, disrupted the country, and made oil more expensive.  Iraq can generally be regarded as a failure because the ends didn’t justify the means.  Because of this Bush was blamed, and his approval rating took a hit.

Another popular example that I couldn’t possible pass up using is the impeachment of President Clinton.  Clinton is actually very interesting when looked at from a Neo-Classical perspective because he isn’t really considered a failure and blamed as the Neo-Classical model dictates.  Clinton was one of the few Presidents who had a budget surplus.  Also, Clinton’s approval rating rose during the scandal subsequent impeachment.  Clinton certainly made a mistake when fooling around with Lewinsky, but from a Neo-Classical standpoint, one can view Clinton in a successful light.  This is because Neo-Classical success deals with utilitarianism for the state or country, and a budget surplus is certainly nice for the country.

The biggest thing about the Neo-Classical model is the justification for actions.  Good or bad justification translates into success or failure, respectfully.  I think that the Neo-Classical model is a surprisingly effective, though unexpected, way to evaluate a president’s success or failure.

Read Full Post »

Before it’s too Late …

As a first semester freshman at the University, I have been constantly reminded to lock my door, watch my purse, never leave my laptop unattended, walk home with a group and know how to say no. The list goes on.  With all of these precautionary hints of advice from our surrounding influences: parents, teachers, administration and police, why are female students still suffering from assaults? As Mill displays in The Subjection of Women, Women have been under the subjection of men for centuries. The system of male superiority “… never was the result of deliberation, or forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion whatever of what conduced to the benefit of humanity or the good order of society. It arose simply from the fact that from the very earliest twilight of human society, every woman owing to the value attached to her by men, combined with her inferiority in muscular strength) was found in a state of bondage to some man” (Mill, 654). Using the steps for social and political change (lecture), I will outline how we can better prepare and change ourselves and our institution to prevent hardships from happening to women, concentrating on the poor treatment of women by men.

The first step towards creating a change in the way we prevent dangerous situations on our campus is by advocating for women’s safety across campus. Women and men should learn how to protect themselves and each other in a college campus setting. We should be encouraging women to demand fair and appropriate treatment. Men and women alike should encourage the opposite sex, and each other, to stick up for themselves in order to bring about a greater respect for each other. “The main foundations of the moral life of modern times must be justice and prudence; the respect of each for the rights of every other, and the ability of each to take care of himself” (Mill, 697). By advocating among the sexes to help ourselves, a more comfortable atmosphere will be created for women to express their fears or suffering. If men and women are in partnership rather than opposition, women will feel more comfortable expressing her power to a male or revealing a situation to authority. This will prove to men that women are not under the subjection of a mans interests.

Advocation will suggest a necessary change in attitudes about the treatment of women. The early ideal of female subjection needs to transformed into a positive and equal view of women. “… the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes — the legal subordination of one sex to the other — is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other” (Mill, 652). By bringing the opposite sexes together into a partnership, students will see a shift in attitudes. Women will not feel an inferior bondage to men and men will not be capable of controlling women as they were in history. The idea of a male dominant society should not be present at our university or institution.

A change in the attitudes of our students will provide reasons for our institution to see the need to change. Once students feel like they have changed social relations between the sexes, they will feel more empowered to change political aspects of our university. If a broader range and larger number of students show their concern for women’s safety, the university will be more likely to take steps to reform. Students will desire reforms that will prevent dangerous situations for women, such as free cab rides home from any location. The reforms will create a safer and more comfortable community. Most importantly, men and women will feel like they can work together to create institutional changes. The ultimate goal of actually implementing the prevention will reach our authorities, who will then encourage the advocation, attitude changes and new reforms throughout campus.

Mill, John S. The Subjection of Women. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2008. 652-705. Print.

Lavaque – Manty, Mika. Political Science Lecture. 02 12 2009. Lecture.

Read Full Post »

Sec.#12 My new ideas of Politics

Growing up in a household where the highest level of education is a high school diploma, I learned to summarize politics into two categories; democrats and republicans. Additionally, democrats were for the poor people and republicans were for the rich people. Before entering this class that was the only thing I knew about politics. Furthermore, during every election I adapted to believing that the republicans were the enemy and the democrats were interested in looking out for my needs and my wants; my friend.

From the beginning readings of this class, pertaining to “The Trial and Death of Socrates” and Martin Luther King Jr.’s , “A letter from a Birmingham Jail” I furthered my claim as I set people from those readings into my two categories. The people charging Socrates were the republicans that followed the rules set to benefit them. As a result, people such as Socrates represented the democrats; the oppressed . The people who have no say-so on the rules and power or authority. It was the same way with Martin Luther King Jr. who challenged segregation laws and jailed for being a threat of taking the law-makers out of their comfort zone.

It wasn’t until Machiavelli’s, “The Prince” that I encountered a society that I could not compare my theory to. There was one ruler and his rule was based on the interest of the state. There is no doubt about it that The Prince wants glory, but in order for that glory to be obtained is by pleasing the state’s interest. Therefore, both the Prince and the state gets what it wants. If everyone is getting pleased, from my interpretation of politics, who then are the oppressed? Who are the democrats?

My thoughts were conflicted as I read through Hobbes and was told that the best way to be protected is to give up ones rights to an array of men and let them protect you from what threatens your life. It all seemed to make sense that if we trust one person or a multitude of people to work within our self-interest; then everything else would simply fall into place.

The reading that altered my perception of politics more, was the readings of Burke. Burke’s theory was to simply let people do what they want as long as they do not trespass upon others. Furthermore, he stated, “Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide human wants.” (“Reflections on the Revolution of France”, pg.513)

With these readings, I looked at society today and recognized that the world of politics was not just democrat and republican. Furthermore, republicans weren’t the enemy and democrats weren’t just the victims of it all. Just as before, there are people in power, who make the rules, and people not in power (the people who abide by the rules). According to my interpretation of politics, republicans consisted of only people in power and everyone else were democrats. However, it is not so that that every single republican is in power. Additionally, there are working-class republicans just as there are working-class democrats. As far as the oppressed is concerned, they must always exist. Rather republican or democrat, African-Americans, or women, there must always be an oppressed group in order for society to be prosperous. Simply because everyone wants a self-verification that they are more important than someone else. That is why there can even exist a theory that republicans are for the rich and democrats are for the poor. It is the idea of self-importance. Concluding, I no longer summarize politics into the theories of democrats and republicans. Nor do I classify myself as either. For when I look to vote for my first time I will look for the Machiavellian theory that the ruler should look to please the interest of the state. I will make sure that the representative follows the Hobbesian theory to be able to trust the ruler with protecting me from threats against my life. Finally I would want them to keep in mind Burke’s philosophy’s that the people should have the freedom to do as they please without trespassing upon others. More importantly, to keep in mind that “Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide human wants.” (“Reflections on the Revolution of France”, pg.513)

Read Full Post »

A Folly of Youth: Political Apathy

Every election year, a crisis seems to rear its ugly head, staring us all right in the face, daring us to take action. Every election year, we hear the same depressing story, over, and over again. Like a broken record, the needle just keeps skipping, replaying the same doom story. Every election year, we hear the demographic voting data, and every year, we hear how poorly the 18-24 year old bracket did with voter turnout.

It’s sad, really. The future fails to care about the present time and time again. Sure, there are those of us who genuinely care, care not only about which candidate seems “cooler,” but care how their foreign policy stance will affect the country long-term, or how their economic plan details success. But let’s face it. Those people are not the majority, never have been, and probably never will be. Not just in the aforementioned “youth” bracket, but every single age demographic in the country seems to be in large part uninformed, and if they the don’t fall into that boat, then they often take propaganda they hear and act as if it was written in stone, making them misinformed, often stubbornly so.

What can a nation do when its foundational aspect of electing the leader of the free world, the people, make their own criterion for selection who looked the best during the debate, or what color/creed they are, or what their stance is on a single issue?  This is the message we as young people get from the older generations, the ones running the country. There is such apathy for complete knowledge of candidates’ platforms from the majority of the older generation, that when it comes time for our turn to walk into the booth, most of us seem to care even less than our parents do.

But we cannot blame others for our own folly, at least not completely. Somewhere along the way, the partial apathy of our elders get amplified on us, so much so that many of us don’t even travel to the polls. There is a large gap between current events and politics and the average young voter. Why? Is it the audience politics usually caters to, the life-experienced and intelligent adult, or it is more that we don’t feel connected to the issues? At what point should we start caring? When we buy a house? When we pay our first real taxes on our own, and actually feel compelled to see what the government is doing with it? Or should we start caring once the economy falls completely apart, and we can’t afford to buy that new laptop, or even get a job coming of out college?

The answer: we need to care now, because however our parents leave us this country is how we’re going to inherit it.  The fact is, people often don’t care about what’s going on around them that does not directly affect them( see world hunger), and this is not lost on us, the youth. But we are ignorant, ignorant to the fact that politics DOES affect us directly, we just cannot see it right in front us all of the time.  As long we get everything we want short-term, the majority are complacent. I suppose that increased responsibility, such as income taxes and home ownership tends to break us of complete apathy, but for some, not even that is enough.

There is a reason we have a voice at age 18 in this government. It is not an ancient, outdated law, it has a purpose. We have a voice at 18 because we are expected to take an active part in this country’s affairs at 18. More than that, we should WANT to take part! So many have died to give us this right, it’s almost disrespectful not to take advantage of it. However, that being said, it is never alright to vote for the sake of voting-part of that privilege requires that we make intelligent choices.

For our own good, we have to care. And it has to be a team effort. Politicians should make redoubled efforts to reach out to the youth, and the youth need to wake up and embrace their legacy. The vicious cycle of political apathy needs to stop if we are to survive as a nation long-term. What better time than now?

This last presidential election showed increased youth voters across the board. Are we finally showing progress?

When the future fails to care about the present, the future destroys itself.

Read Full Post »

A Mini Marxist Society

Marx was the last political philosopher that was covered in Polisci this semester, and this philosopher has struck close to home the most. Marx’s ideas seem a bit dated, and it is somewhat hard to see Capitalism in such a divided and immobile way. Even though these things are true, his ideas do still apply today. Two main points in Marx’s writings that were interesting to me were the lack of social mobility and the division of classes (bourgeoisie and proletariats).

I worked at a restaurant during high school and until now, I did not realize what an unprogressive hierarchy it was. There were three owners of this restaurant and they definitely had money. Although in a recession, the restaurant was doing well despite the expensive price to dine there. There were many cooks that worked there, and almost none of them spoke English. It was obvious that the cooks had no other option but to work there, but I did not know why, at first.

In this application of Marx’s theory, the owners of the restaurant are the bourgeois and the cooks are the proletariats. The proletariats did not own anything, they were the workers who provided the labor. The owners of the business owned the mean of production, which included the building, the supplies, and the workers (the cooks to be exact). How did they “own” the cooks you ask? Keep in mind I mentioned before how unprogressive this company was. The cooks were actually indentured servants. Which are defined as, “persons obliged by contract to work for a stated number of years.”(“Maryland State Archives Reference & Research”) This restaurant literally owned them. Indentured servants were common in the 16^th and 17^th century, but were still found until the mid-1800s. The owners of this business sponsored five Mexicans to come and work for them, for free. Their payment for their fulltime job was an apartment to split among the five of them and free food.

In our discussion, we watched a clip of a movie about Chinese factory workers who get paid way under minimum wage for a fulltime (and overtime) position. Such a little wage in fact, that it is barely a salary to live on. This provides no social mobility between the classes. Continuing with my example of the restaurant, these cooks had no hope of any social mobility. Although their food and shelter were paid for, it was against the owners’ rules to get any other job, which means no profit at all. If they decided to break the indentured servant contract, they would be brought back to Mexico and lose out on the chance to become an American citizen. As Marx stated, “Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to It under which it can, at least, continue it’s slavish existence”(Wootton, pg 804). While the oppressing and the oppressed classes are a bit less obvious in today’s society, they both are still there. In this restaurant that is similar to the mid-1800s, it is clear to see that the bourgeois (the owners) and the proletariats (the cooks) are.

It’s hard to imagine that even though it’s the 21^st century and in the United States, there is still a legal way to own all the means of production, including a person. Even more so, that it is legal in a Capitalist society to hinder and restrict a person’s right to move up in society. Marx said, “Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class oppressing another” (Wootton, pg 809) and how right he was.

Works Cited

“Understanding Maryland Records- Indentured Servants.” Maryland State Archives Reference & Research. 22 Mar 2005. Maryland State Archives, Web. <http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/refserv/html/servant.html&gt;.

Wootton, David. Modern Political Thought. Second Edition. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2008. Print.

Read Full Post »

marriage and slavery

I find many of Mills’ views quite hilarious not because they are ridiculous, but he sounds like most of the men I know.  In one of the readings on Mills he compares the institution of marriage to slavery.  It is ironic because in this case Mills is very analytical and serious when going through the comparison, but whenever a husband compares their marriage it is usually to get a laugh.  Surprisingly though both use many of the same characteristics. 
                According to Mills marriage is similar to slavery because you are accepting a master figure through your spouse.  Depending on how you handle this situation determines how much control you have.  Ha also points out the fact that a slave cannot own or posses any land or other major properties.  If you think about it by getting married you basically give away at least half of your current belongings and whatever you obtain during the time that you are married to your wife.  Around page 667 in Wotton’s work he shares with us the situation that younger women used to have to deal with.  For a long period of time women were sold or given up by their fathers to the man who offered the best situation, so they really didn’t have too much say in their fate.  Since the beginning of slavery back in the roman era this was how the slave trade was handled.  Customers would make their offers on slaves and depending on weither the holder agreed with the offer the slave would stay or go, just as the father would chose who won his daughter’s hand.  There are also similarities between what the man wants from both the slave and the woman.  He wants a “happy submission” from the slave to do what his master tells him to do and for his wife to want to serve him not to do it because she has to. 
                Mills also shares with us the differences that separate a wife from a slave.  A woman carries something much more important to the man than does a slave.  The woman has the ability to bare a man’s child which is one of the main goals of males, to pass on their genetic makeup.  The slave on the other hand either doesn’t have this ability or there isn’t a desire from the man to make offspring with a slave.  Another difference is that the slaves were managed through fear of their owners while women were taught through care and education in the effort to make her want to please the man.  At the alter the woman vows a lifelong obedience to her husband, so the rest of her time is spent living for her husband.  A slave also has the right to resist a master’s sexual urges while the wife cannot really do the same because of sexual domination.  Luckily the rule of strength that was relevant back then no longer applies today.
                Although in my opinion Mills’ views are somewhat entertaining they really do make sense.  They play out in life the same way today as they did back when Mills’ work was created.

Read Full Post »