At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Two schools of thought exist running parallel with one another; one, Habermas's theoretical system of the possibility of reason and in the human capacity to deliberate and pursue rational interests [Constitutional liberalism]. The other, Bourdieu’s theoretical system argues that Constitutional liberalism is a form of domination. The poor, pressed by the need to make a living, don't have the luxury of developing the social and intellectual skills needed to participate in political deliberation.
For Bourdieu, liberal constitutionalism's promise of a public sphere where the only thing that matters is the strength of your arguments is inherently part of the system of domination.
If given what I said is true, can Socialist and Capitalist ever come to an agreement?
In my opinion, the two ideas (in the US anyways) are already beginning to "come to an agreement" with those in power who on one side continue to support the business base of this country - and on the other sde continue to grow a government who will tell us (and mandate/dictate) more and more what is best for everyone.
In my opinion, the two ideas (in the US anyways) are already beginning to "come to an agreement" with those in power who on one side continue to support the business base of this country - and on the other sde continue to grow a government who will tell us (and mandate/dictate) more and more what is best for everyone.
Implicit in that conclusion is that the concept, co-operation, is synonymous with agreement. It also raises the question of whether America continues to practice constitutional liberalism, and if so to what degree.
The only comment I have about capitalism and socialism is that as poor as I am and God knows I can use the help from programs I can not see the socialism that many poor and politicians would like to see because then, for one, what is the incentive for the rich to keep the economy going? What will we do if everything for everybody is handed out and nobody feels the NEED to work? I already know hundreds of poor people that feel no need to work and they are most wasteful and unappreciative of what they do 'get'. They are literally wasting their life away.
The only comment I have about capitalism and socialism is that as poor as I am and God knows I can use the help from programs I can not see the socialism that many poor and politicians would like to see because then, for one, what is the incentive for the rich to keep the economy going? What will we do if everything for everybody is handed out and nobody feels the NEED to work? I already know hundreds of poor people that feel no need to work and they are most wasteful and unappreciative of what they do 'get'. They are literally wasting their life away.
I hear you Sapphire; I’m so poor I hang toilet paper out to dry.
I should not have used the term, ‘Socialist’ so loosely. I should have said, “Chavismo or Chavezism” which is a mix of socialism and capitalism.
So you can see, my OP was a mess where I said capitalism vs. socialism. It should have read, “Constitutional liberalism vs. “Chavismo.” And the question should have been...
Chavezism is much like the socialisms of the past . Using Bourdieu's thesis thugs have used demagogic populism to rally the masses under the premise that they will be taken care of by the thug. Typically after they gain control and consolidate their absolute power they fail to deliver and the masses end up worse than they were before . Populism in itself is not bad . But when it isn't tempered by the values of liberal democracy it leads to dictatorship . In this regard Chavez appears to be a mirror image of Castro ,and perhaps Juan Peron.
Chavez is well on his way to consolidation. Venezuelans are being asked to vote on 69 constitutional amendments he proposed, that he calls 21st-Century Socialism ;that would effectively put a knife into Venezuelan constitutional liberalism . Although public opinion is decidely against his "reforms " I have no doubt they will be adopted . He has called anyone who would vote against them traitors.
Quote:
Still, supporters of pluralistic, constitutional democracy have not given up. University students have marched in opposition to the proposals, despite violence from pro-Chavez forces and jeers from the president, who calls them "fascists" and "rich bourgeois brats." But as Douglas Cassel of the Center for Civil and Human Rights at the University of Notre Dame put it in a recent radio commentary, "Show me a revolution opposed by uni- versity students en masse, and I'll show you a phony revolution."
Ivan Stalin González, who prefers to be called just plain Stalin, is president of the student body at the Central University of Venezuela, or UCV, Venezuela's biggest public university. During the past few weeks, Mr. González and other student leaders here have organized protest marches by tens of thousands of students opposed to a constitutional referendum set for Dec. 2. .........
The student movement has taken the government by surprise, highlighting an embarrassing irony for the fiery Mr. Chávez: University students, long a bastion of the left here as in the rest of Latin America, are overwhelmingly opposed to him. They have also emerged, along with the Catholic Church, as among the last major opposition to Mr. Chávez in a country where he already controls the congress, courts, army and most media outlets.
But I doubt you will hear a peep of protest by the US left about this destruction of liberal democracy in Venezuela.
Chavezism is much like the socialisms of the past . Using Bourdieu's thesis thugs have used demagogic populism to rally the masses under the premise that they will be taken care of by the thug. Typically after they gain control and consolidate their absolute power they fail to deliver and the masses end up worse than they were before . Populism in itself is not bad . But when it isn't tempered by the values of liberal democracy it leads to dictatorship . In this regard Chavez appears to be a mirror image of Castro ,and perhaps Juan Peron.
Chavez is well on his way to consolidation. Venezuelans are being asked to vote on 69 constitutional amendments he proposed, that he calls 21st-Century Socialism ;that would effectively put a knife into Venezuelan constitutional liberalism . Although public opinion is decidely against his "reforms " I have no doubt they will be adopted . He has called anyone who would vote against them traitors.
But I doubt you will hear a peep of protest by the US left about this destruction of liberal democracy in Venezuela.
Yeah Tom, you’re right on. The article by political scientists Javier Corrales and Michael Penfold is the very best analysis I have come across. It is long but well worth the read.
“Chávez never tires of proclaiming a commitment to participatory rather than liberal democracy. He is right that Venezuela is moving away from liberal democracy, but he is not replacing it with more par¬ticipation. Instead, Chávez is creating what many classical-liberal think¬ers feared most: a quasi-tyranny of the majority. The Chávez regime has emerged as an example of how leaders can exploit both state resources and the public’s widespread desire for change to crowd out the opposi¬tion, and, by extension, democracy.”
Part of the issue is socialism in its pure form, just can not exist becuase of the evil of mans values. It is always tainted by control and power, so the item of it, as a possiblity in any government is flawed not by its ideas, but by its stucture.
Linear Mode
