How valid is this interpretation of Disraeli's career and achievements in the period 1846-1880? In my opinion John Walton makes valid interpretation of Disraeli's political achievements
"A schemer who hid his opportunism behind a smokescreen of high sounding phrases" (John Walton, an academic historian and specialising in modern British history written in a student textbook, Disraeli 1990) How valid is this interpretation of Disraeli's career and achievements in the period 1846-1880? In my opinion John Walton makes valid interpretation of Disraeli's political achievements within his career. It can be argued that Disraeli's existence within the political world was down to his opportunism. We know that Disraeli was fighting for a position in the House of Commons and to be taken seriously, however it was not until he married Mary Ann Lewis did his career conveniently start to advance. There is no denial he loved his wife, but he took an opportunity that presented itself, when he married her. Her former husband was an Mp and with her contacts and influence she helped kick start Disraeli's real political career. One of Disraeli's greatest achievements within his career was the second reform bill. However, being that it wasn't an original idea and merely a failed Liberal bill. The controversy of whether Disraeli genuinely wanted reform is not relevant. Despite perhaps the want of reform Disraeli again grabs opportunity with both hands and put through the reform bill in order to benefit his career. So Disraeli's great achievement within his career was merely
Assess the contribution of the Marxist perspective to sociology
Assess the contribution of the Marxist perspective to sociology The Marxist perspective is associated with Karl Marx, who saw history in terms of there being an over all conflict between different social classes known as the ruling class and the working class. All the power of society was monopolized by the ruling class (individuals who owned the means of production) and provided the tension for conflict. Marx believed that a revolution would occur with the ruling class being over thrown by the working class, and it was only a matter of time before it would happen. He also saw human society as being based on the production of good, arguing that society had a material base. Marx thought the only way that this revolution could be avoided was if society became communist, as there was no economic surplus and no private wealth, so classes couldn't exist within society. Instead there would be communal ownership of the means of production. The Marxist perspective also influenced the Neo -Marxists, who were strongly influenced by Marx but didn't agree with some of his work. Gramsci is an example of a neo Marxist, who stated that ownership of the means of production was not enough to win ruling class control, working class would need to make alliances with other classes to attain hegemony (political domination). Marx believed that his methodology and values were objective and
Would a world of democratic states prevent war?
Would a world of democratic states prevent war? "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other." (American President Bill Clinton in his State of the Union Address to Congress, Jan. 25, 1994) In 1994, American President Bill Clinton declared that the promotion of democracy was one of the most important factors in ensuring America's security and world peace in the post-Cold War era, a policy of the Clinton administration, which is also supported by the current Bush administration. Clinton's claims are based on the school of thought of international relations known as "democratic peace". The theory of "democratic peace" was developed in the 1980's, but its roots trace back to the 1790's and the writings of Immanuel Kant. The theory suggests that democratic states are incredibly reluctant to go to war against other democratic states, thus it can be argued that an increase in democratic states would result in greater world peace and ensure America's security. Students of the "democratic peace" school of thought have spent thousands of hours analyzing wars in order to prove that democracies are more peaceful than other forms of governing regime. They claimed to have proven their point by showing that although the 20th century ranking among the most violent
In what sense(s) can liberalism be regarded as individualistic? Should individualism be regarded as a strength or weakness of liberalism?
In what sense(s) can liberalism be regarded as individualistic? Should individualism be regarded as a strength or weakness of liberalism? Ever since the creation of liberalism, definitions and values have been ever changing. Indeed, different countries can change the understanding of liberalism. In Britain, liberalism has centred on religious toleration, government by consent and personal/ economic freedom. On the other hand, traditional French liberalism has been associated with secularism and democracy. With this in mind, the issue over liberalism makes for a somewhat high level of debate. However, looking beyond all the variables of liberalism, the theory of individualism appears to be ever present. This is why liberalism can be regarded as individualistic. Perhaps the main argument over liberalism being individualistic, is whether or not, this is a strength or a weakness. "At the philosophical level, liberals have affirmed a commitment to the concepts of equality, liberty, individuality and rationality."1 This statement from Eatwell and Wright conveys that individualism is a key concept in regards to liberalism. Defining liberalism is perhaps the best way in which to regard it as individualistic. The actual term liberalism can be traced as far backed as the fourteenth century. The word liberal automatically conveys a sense of freedom in light that the it derives from
How Far Can the Weimar Constitution be Described as Creating an "Effective" Democracy
How Far Can the Weimar Constitution be Described as Creating an "Effective" Democracy? For the first time in the history of Germany, the state was a democratic republic. The constitution was something of a fragile experiment, a guinea pig. Theoretically speaking, the Weimar Constitution could be described as the most democratic constitution the world has ever laid eyes upon, in practice, things were not as clear. Germany was to be a "Federal State," with each "Lander," (state) retaining limited control over local affairs. This recognised local differences within Germany, with each Lander being represented in the Reichstrat. Effectively small states had as much influence as bigger states. This system allowed for the Reichstrat to be a microcosm of German society, with local diversity taken into account, which is of course extremely democratic, because all citizens no matter how remote had somebody representing their local needs. The Reichstag was extremely democratic because the German public elected members of the Reichstag. Universal suffrage for adults over the age of 20, meant that every body, had a vote, to decide who gained a seat. Politicians were accountable to the people, with regular elections, no longer than 4 years apart, giving people the opportunity to vote members out, which is democratic. Proportional Representation meant that every party got the percentage
Assess how far there is or isn’t a distinction between authority and power.
Assess how far there is or isn't a distinction between authority and power. The first main point to raise in this discussion is can the two exist independently, without each other if you were to have total control of the state. It is hard to distinguish between the two as a result, as they are so dependent on one and other. However, Rousseau ( 1712 - 1778) would disagree with this. He claims that authority is dependent on power to work, but power does not have to rely on authority to work, as there is no moral obligation to obey a government based on force (power) as it is able to coerce people into it. Conservatism also favours power, and sees it as more essential than authority, as it believes that with power comes authority just as Rousseau argued. According to conservatism the authority of the state originates from custom and tradition, and is therefore very reluctant to change out-of-date theories of legitimacy. As it is traditional, it is also therefore adopts an authoritarian principle. But where does the state's authority and power derive from, it is the strongest who rule. The ability to use force compels obedience from the state people. It has been seen many times in history that when the power fails, the state ultimately collapses. Power is basically the ability to make things happen concerning both political and social areas, and means people
In what ways has British Socialism differed from other forms of Socialism seen elsewhere? British Socialism has always been a particularly moderate socialist party
In what ways has British Socialism differed from other forms of Socialism seen elsewhere? British Socialism has always been a particularly moderate socialist party. They have mainly been represented by the Labour Party who stand to represent the interests of the working class within the existing democratic political framework. Elsewhere in the world there have been differing examples of Socialism in practise and in theory. Socialism, in various forms, can be seen to have been used by even the most primitive of tribes. They practiced common ownership and egalitarianism however; the Diggers (an English movement 1609-76) still had a fundamental belief in God. With the rise of capitalism and its inevitable class structure, socialist ideals of a classless utopia of equality became popular amongst those at the bottom of the capitalist pile. The Revolutionary works of Karl Marx where also to have a fundamental impact on Socialism in the world. In the 20th century the world has bared witness to the first self- proclaimed 'communist' state, the USSR. Under the leader Lenin and Stalin Socialism has taken on various forms, paying some gratitude to some Marxist teachings whilst abandoning Marxism upon a totalitarian whim. The defining feature of communism that separates it apart most from other ideologies is the core value of equality. By this Socialists measure equality of outcome
Analyse the Christian themes of Dante's "inferno" in terms of its relevance to and his refection's on his contemporary society?
Q) Analyse the Christian themes of Dante's "inferno" in terms of its relevance to and his refection's on his contemporary society? "Oh enslaved Italy! Place of sorrow, ship without captain in a storm, not respectable lady but place of corruption" (The Divine Comedy, Purgatorio, VI 76- 78)1 Dante Alighieri had seen the State of Florence in all its corruption, treachery, and fed up with the Medieval world and its trappings began the writing of his work that would encompass his life, and become a milestone in Dante's acknowledgement in literary history. His masterpiece the "Divina Commedia" (Italian for the Divine Comedy), containing the allegory of human suffering "Inferno", has been seen throughout history, as a model of the moral and religious complications of Medieval culture, but most of all the Medieval world. Dante very much was involved in the political life of his town Florence. From a contextual perspective, Florence was in political turmoil, with the papacy's fraud in gaining power in the state, and the conflicting political leaders of the time opposing the papacy's demands. Dante played a major role in this tug of war of power and authority and is a major focal point of why the "Inferno" was written, and it's underlying audience and message, that pervaded its composition. The Guelfs and Ghibellines were the main social and political factions of medieval
How democratic was Britain by 1918?
How democratic was Britain by 1918? In early 19th century Britain was an undemocratic country. Boroughs and counties divided the electoral system. There were voting differences between them. Men had to be of a particular age and a particular wealth to earn the franchise. Seats were not distributed equally - not by population. Bribery and corruption was apparent throughout the country. Only the rich could stand for election because it was an unpaid job with an entrance fee. There were no frequent elections. However between mid 19th century and 1918 there was vast progress. Greater equality and less power based on wealth helped this. Economic, social and political changes assisted the country into becoming democratic. The reform act of 1867 extended the franchise and introduced a fairer distribution of mps. In boroughs all male household owners satisfying a one year residence could vote. In counties all male household owners owning property to the value of £5 could vote. In boroughs all male lodgers living in rooms worth at least £10 could vote. In counties all men renting property with an annual value of £12 could vote. These acts increased the number of voters to 2,445,847 in 1869. 1 in 3 males had the vote. Even though the number of voters had dramatically increased the franchise was still dominated by wealth. 35 boroughs with populations under 10,000 lost one of
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" why do liberals believe this and what are its implications.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" why do liberals believe this and what are its implications. The above statement was written by a liberal called Lord Acton, he is what is commonly called a classical liberal. Classical liberalism was pre-Twentieth century liberalism, before it was revised because of the progress in industrialisation. However, the consistent central theme of liberalism in both forms (classical and modern) is individualism. Classical liberals see humans as being selfish and egoistical beings, as opposed to the modern liberal thought that humans are altruistic. Therefore modern liberals have a much more optimistic view of human beings compared to that of classical liberals. As I have stated above Lord Acton as a classical liberal believed humans to be egoistical, and as such thought that if beings got in to a position of power and authority then the government would be tyrannical. A tyrannical government is one that rules above the law, for example Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. Liberals thought that to prevent tyranny a sovereign state needs to be in place, which would limit the government's power. Power would be limited by internal and external constraints, for example constitutionalism which would mean that the population would know the extent of the government's power. Liberals therefore wanted to prevent tyranny from
