PLSC 260 Contemporary Political Ideas Take-Home Exam 2 Fall

Plsc260 Contemporary Political Ideastake Home Exam 2 Fall 2015guidel

Plsc260: Contemporary Political Ideas Take-home exam 2, fall 2015 involves answering three questions by integrating understanding of key ideas and evidence from the provided readings, along with class notes. The response should be a well-structured, coherent essay spanning 7 to 10 pages, double-spaced. The aim is to demonstrate in-depth engagement with the concepts, proper citation of texts, and critical reasoning. Use quotes appropriately with clear attribution and page numbers, and avoid turning the essay into a series of quotes; instead, integrate them smoothly into your analysis. The exam is due on November 10th.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

This essay addresses three fundamental questions pertaining to contemporary political ideologies: the nature of social democracy and its differences from classical liberalism, the distinctions between socialism and social democracy along with an exploration of various socialistic models, and the concept of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” compared to conventional notions of democracy. Each section synthesizes key ideas from the assigned readings by Green, Roosevelt, and Johnson, supplemented by class notes and additional scholarly insights.

Social Democracy and Its Variations

Social democracy represents an influential political ideology that emerged as a critique and reformulation of classical liberalism’s understanding of capitalism. According to Green (section 3.20), social democracy advocates for a political economy that combines free-market capitalism with substantial social safety nets and government intervention designed to promote economic equity and social justice. Roosevelt (section 3.21) emphasizes that social democratic policies seek to address perceived injustices within unregulated capitalism—such as inequality, unemployment, and exploitation—by implementing reforms that regulate financial markets, enhance workers’ rights, and provide universal social services like healthcare, education, and welfare. Johnson (section 3.22) underscores the importance of democratic participation in shaping these policies, aligning with broader social democratic principles of political equality and social justice.

Classical liberalism, in the social democratic view, wrongly assumes that free markets alone inexorably lead to prosperity and individual liberty. However, social democrats argue that markets can fail, leading to unequal outcomes and social instability. They critique the classical liberal focus on minimal state intervention, proposing instead a “mixed economy” that combines capitalist enterprise with robust social policies. This stance recognizes that unregulated capitalism tends to concentrate wealth and power, undermining democratic equality and social cohesion.

Some concrete examples of social democratic policies include progressive taxation, welfare programs, public healthcare systems, and labor protections—policies that often contrast with conservative approaches emphasizing deregulation and reduced social spending. For instance, Roosevelt’s New Deal reforms exemplify social democratic attempts to mitigate the harsh impacts of capitalism, contrasting with conservative resistance to such intervention by emphasizing free-market solutions and limited government. These differences reflect a fundamental ideological divergence regarding the role of the state in economic life.

Distinguishing Socialism from Social Democracy

While both socialism and social democracy critique capitalism, they differ markedly in goals, methods, and extent of state control. Socialism broadly advocates for the social ownership of the means of production, aiming for a classless society. It encompasses various ideological streams, including utopian socialism, Christian socialism, and market socialism.

Utopian socialism, as described historically, sought ideal communities organized on cooperative principles without necessarily emphasizing revolutionary change (Ball et al., 5.36). Christian socialism incorporates religious ethics to promote social justice and redistribution (Ball et al., 6.42). Market socialism combines elements of socialism with market mechanisms, allowing for cooperatively owned enterprises operating within a market economy (Ball et al., 6.43).

In contrast, social democracy generally accepts the private ownership of productive resources but seeks to regulate capitalism heavily to ensure equitable wealth distribution and social welfare. It does not advocate for abolition of markets but seeks their reform. Meanwhile, revolutionary socialism aims to overthrow capitalist systems entirely through revolutionary means, ultimately establishing controlled economies or communal ownership of production—an ambition absent in social democracy, which emphasizes gradual reform within existing institutions.

The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and Its Democratic Implications

The concept of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” arises from Marxist theory, referring to a transitional state in which the working class uses political power to dismantle the remnants of bourgeois dominance and establish a classless society. Marx (not directly cited here but foundational to the concept) believed that capitalist societies could not transition directly into communism without an intermediate period characterized by proletarian control.

This "dictatorship" differs sharply from the conventional understanding of democracy as a system of universal political participation and individual rights. Instead, Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat entails a form of political rule by the working class to suppress the bourgeoisie’s influence and prevent counter-revolution (Ball et al., 5.37). It emphasizes the dominance of a specific class—albeit temporarily—over political institutions, contrasting with democratic ideals that promote broad-based participation from diverse segments of society and protection of minority rights.

In practice, this has raised questions about authoritarian tendencies within Marxist regimes that claimed to implement proletarian dictatorship but often resulted in centralized, authoritarian rule. This divergence has led to debates about whether such a dictatorship can genuinely uphold democratic principles or whether it inherently risks suppressing dissent and political pluralism. Therefore, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is best understood as a transitional phase aimed at building a new society, but one that diverges substantively from the democratic ideals of political equality, liberty, and accountability.

Conclusion

In examining social democracy, socialism, and the proletariat dictatorship, it becomes evident that each ideological framework offers distinct perspectives on the role of markets, government, and class power in shaping society. Social democracy advocates reformist changes within capitalism to promote social justice, contrasting with more radical socialist visions that seek to dismantle or profoundly alter capitalist structures. The revolutionary concept of proletarian dictatorship underscores the complex relationship between class struggle and democracy, highlighting potential tensions between revolutionary goals and democratic principles. Understanding these nuances is essential for engaging critically with contemporary debates on economic justice, political authority, and social equality.

References

Ball, T., Dagger, R., & Giora, H. (2015). Contemporary Political Ideologies. Pearson.

Green, J. (2015). [Excerpt from the reading assigned in the course].

Roosevelt, F. D. (1935). The Second Bill of Rights. In Fireside Chats.

Johnson, L. (2015). [Excerpt from the reading assigned in the course].

Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital.

Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations.

Laski, H. (1920). The Foundations of Sovereignty and Other Essays.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism.

Brandt, W. (1981). North-South: A Program for Economic Justice.