Appeal to the Young

 I like how Kropotkin’s first question to the young was “What am I going to be?” I’m a very confident in saying that every child has been ask asked when they were little what they wanted to be and kids said something like a firefighter, princess, or president. Today in college majority of our views have changed to something we really want to be like a teacher, businessman, or doctors. I like how Kropotkin points out how he doesn’t care what type of money you come from rich or poor and that the whole reading is for people around our age now. I felt that basically Kropotkin just kept giving situations of jobs and how other might react to how you do your job which was kind of weird. At one part of the reading it seems like he’s yelling at the readers trying to get his point across.

Communist Manifesto

The first time I read the Communist Manifesto was my senior year in high school when I took AP European history.  This time around, I had a slightly different view when diving into the material than when I first read it.  This time I had more background information as to why society and politics developed as they did, instead of just knowing which part of the world it started in; having that knowledge made it a little easier to read.  One thing that I noticed while reading the Communist Manifesto is that Marx never seems to flat out say how society should function, he just spends most of the piece saying how capitalism is bad.  Marx talks about how society is being divided into two classes, bourgeoise and proletariat, and how classes are tearing society apart.  He proposes that communism, equalization of all classes, would solve this problem, but doesn't really ever explain specifically how it will change it for the better.  Personally, I enjoyed this reading because having been born in America, I've always been told communism is bad and there's nothing good about it.  Because of this reason I could never understand why if communism was so awful, that whole countries would agree to go along with this system of government.  Not to say that I think communism is the better system, but I now understand why some people may think that it's a positive direction for the government to move in.  It's just interesting to see the other side of an issue, without having the negatives thrust into the light constantly.

communist manifesto

This reading was really hard to understand, I had to re-read sentences 3- times to understand at one point but once I got the hang of it I kind of liked it. I like way he broke down the history of the social classes and today they are just as important. Even though in this day and age its not clear but now people that in the same social class appear to have the same political view

communist manifesto

This was my favorite reading we have had in this class yet. I liked how it explained how social classes were such a big deal everywhere in the world because I feel like it is still that way today. Im not saying that it is like that everywhere, or even as intense as it was in history but I feel like social class is still a huge part of life. For example in the US most of the wealthy people tend to have the same political views. I think there will always be levels of importance among people. In the reading there are two main groups explained. The bourgeoise are the upper class people with money and they dictate how there society runs. The Proletariat are the lower class people that just seem to live and go by the rules of the wealthy. The reading explained how communism came about and how it would work better. It was interesting to me because it made a lot of sense how it came to be this way and I enjoyed learning more about communism.

Communist Manifesto

I thought that this reading was difficult at times and easy to understand. But I also learned something from it that I didn't know about Communism.

 The introduction was talking about how the European powers have formed together against the Communists idea.  Communist of many different nationalities have come together in London and is written in to be published in this Manifesto to make their views known.  It then discusses two classes called the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.  Bourgeoisie were serfs in the Middle Ages.  The Manifesto shows how the bourgeoisie began the production and exchange. Markets kept growing and the demand for supplies kept increasing and the manufacturing could not keep up.  This was also called the Industrial Revolution.  The proletarians are able to find work as long as their labor increases capital.  The Manifesto then describes the struggle with the bourgeois.  It involved individual labors, groups of workers that would rebel against the bourgeois.  Marx explains how that the only class that rioted is the proletariat and that all the other classes fought against the bourgeois.

The Communist Maifesto

I really liked the history lesson at the beginning of the manifesto. I think it really helped explain what was going on in the world and how it came to be that way. I certainly don't view the world as black and white as Marx did, and when I say black and white I mean his characterizing the world into two classes; the bourgeois and the proletariat. I do think, however, that distinguishing the world into two class systems (those few who run the world, and the many that make it happen) really helped Marx to explain his world view.

Something I was thinking about when I was reading the history of capitalism was the idea of communism in its relation to primitive society. In one of the first foot notes, it mentions the idea of a commune society in primitive cultures. When I thought of this it reminded me of learning about cultures that would have community collections of grain that would be given out in equal shares to the members of that community. The manifesto went on to talk about defining people into two classes beginning in in feudal society, then later into guilds and modern industry. To my point of view it seems that capitalism was a social evolution that came about, it makes me wonder why Marx thought it best that society move backwards, more to the idea of a commune society. I understand that Marx was predicting the collapse of Capitalism, but to me, it doesn't make sense that society would take a step backwards, but would keep evolving.

Reading post

The Communist Manifesto was one of the most interesting readings this semester in my opinion. Marx had many valid points throughout the text that really made sense to me! He was against taking advantage of lower class citizens like most governments continue to do today. He believed that the best way to reform the government was through revolution. Marx had many great ideas that could be very useful in the current government system.

The Communist Manifesto

There were a lot of valid points in The Communist Manifesto! It definitely was a lot to take in, but I can see the way Marx thought of communism. He was very sure of what he was talking about emphasizing on the exploitation between classes. He was a strong believer that government reforms weren't going to get rid of social classes but revolution would. Marx was definitely a brilliant man.

An Appeal To The Young

I liked how this reading started out by saying that it is specifically directed to people our age; 18-20. I didn't like how a lot of the things in the beginning said let's assume or I would assume... I also didn't like the overall language this was spoken in. It was easy to read but the way it was presented was strange to me and it was like a one way conversation. It became really weird when entire sentences were in capital letters. However, overall I thought the purpose of the reading was better suited for us to read rather than things like the apology. It was giving advice and what if situations throughout and had answers to them.

Manifesto of the Communist Party

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels did a good job explaining the guidelines of Communism and what will truly make it work. I think they had it right on the money even though I don't agree with Communism what they said about it made sense because in today's society there is a divide between classes and there is not a middle anymore. Karl Marx knew this divide was eventually going to happen and this is why he thought Communism was the best thing for his country. I did not really know the true meaning of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie until reading this reading. The Bourgeoisie is the elite of the society and they dictate what happens to the society because they are the ones with the money. The Proletariat are the working class who work for the Bourgeoisie but they are not slaves. Even though this reading was not my favorite reading it was interesting and I learned a lot more about Communism and where it was stemmed from.

The Communist Manifesto

Luckily this reading was much easier to digest than our last reading of Tillich. The main idea that Marx's Manifesto adheres to this basic principle of the division of society into classes. While through out history man has always been divided into multiple classes (surfs, landowners, knights, lords etc.), The advancement of technologies, the division of labor, and the modernization of society brought on by the industrial revolution has produced the two class system. Between the Bourgeoisie, and the proletariat. The wealthy corporate employer and the working class. Also, due to the technological advancements in travel, communication etc. bourgeoisie society tends to self-perpetuation. Drawing all non-bourgeoisie "barbaric" cultures and societies in to the modern world creating an "inter-dependence of nations". Geographic specific resources and products are no longer limited to that region, but to the entire global society. Ideas and technology are no longer confined to certain nations or groups of people but are shared and known abroad. And interesting idea that Marx express was the fact that this idea can be applied throughout all facets of the modern world, on any scale.  Whether it be the family structure turned to a relationship focusing on money, or between the wealthy corporate employers, and the working class. Or even, in a much broader sense, the relationship between the industrialized, modernized nations and the yet to modernize nations. The East and the West.

I read Animal Farm for the first time as a Junior in high school. I thought it was a great book and even then understood the basic underlying message of the story. I thought it was very interesting considering it was a required reading. After reading about Marx and related theories, it was much easier to catch the references and compare the story of Animal Farm to Stalin's Russia. I disagree with the majority of Marxist beliefs and characteristics detailed in this weeks reading, but I think I can grasp an understanding of why people would want such a government. If an individual who has no desire to work and earn something on their own, yet want to reek the same rewards as those who do, why not favor a government that disregards initiative and individual success?

i think karl marx is a genius. i think that he took everything into consideration except for the fact that there is a human flaw called greed. he knows this is a major flaw because he says that the only way for mankind to progress as a society is through violent revolution which makes total senze to me because no rich person is going to want to give up his power to become an equaal in society, but i realy like marx's ideas and philosophy. I prefer the communist party over what we have in america, except for the fact that i dont want to live through a violent revolution. i realy like his ideas except for the fact that i dont believe in violence, therefor i dont beieve in having a violent revolution to reach comunism, but the ideas are nice. no possesions, no reason for greed or hunger.

Animal Farm

Easily the easiest read of the three; I really liked this the second time around. I had to read it in 9th grade, but  we read it for English rather than history, so I thought it was just some crazy acid trip induced novella originally. Knowing what I know now, I think Orwell did an amazing job creating this metaphor, and couldn't put it down. Insofar as I could tell this time around, his main point was that no society could exist in which all could be 100% equal because there is no community in existence in which all ARE equal; be it mentally or physically. If no one is ACTUALLY equal, then there will always be dissent.

Animal Farm

It has been a few years since I first read Animal Farm. And back then, I didn't really understand the true meaning of the writing. Now that I am older, I was better able to understand what the book was really about. It goes without saying that the book was very enjoyable to read and was quite entertaining. I feel that George Orwell did a very good job in drawing parallels between Stalin's Russia and Animal Farm, Napoleon and Stalin as well as Snowball and Leon Trotsky. I think that this goes to show if people place power and responsibility in the hands of a few, no matter how noble the cause, the saying "absolute power, corrupts absolutely" holds true. Without a doubt, the animals set out to make better lives for themselves with a new system of governance, just as the Russians did during the revolution of the Czar (Tsar). However, history seemed to repeat itself. As time went on, those who had power began to abuse this privilege and their priorities then became to achieve more power. This at the cost of the rest of the "citizens" of Animal Farm. I look forward to our discussions this week on Animal Farm and Marxism.

Communist Manifesto

     Karl Marx wrote in the first chapter of his manifesto that the economy is being developing much to quickly. The bourgeoisie are the upper class of the time who as controlling all of the capitalism. Marx states that the proletarians, lower working class, can't compete with the rapidly expanding markets and believes the proletarians will revolt against the Bourgeoisie. I think in this period of time where industry is really picking up Marx has a rational concern.

     In chapter two, Marx explains that the communists and the proletariat class share the same interests. The primary objective of the communists and the revolutionary proletariat is to do away with private property. The only way to get away from capitalism is to be equal ensuring that the all people only receive what they need. In turn this means giving up anything private and cultural. This idea seems less rational to me, however at the time when people were desperate to provide to themselves and their family this was a pretty sure fire solution. 

     Chapter three discusses socialist and communist literature. Marx says that other socialists movements don't understand the significance of the proletarian struggle. They either looked to previous social organizations for solutions, they denied the current problems of their society, or they failed to see that violence of behalf of the proletarians is the only way to end the oppression.

   Marx raps up the manifesto in saying that the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains and they will unity is a revolution of communism. Again as I said before, this makes more since for the time period and for the proletariat people who really did have nothing to lose.

Animal farm!

I really enjoyed Animal farm, even though I have read it before I forgot some of the parts. I also noticed more the second time I read it. It could have been just because I’m older and new more about the time period and what they are talking about. The book is really entertaining and you don’t even realize it “history” because the usage of animals makes it an easy read. The author did a great job incorporating the animals instead of making it boring with people like every other history book does. I really enjoyed this reading it took me no time to read and I was actually excited to read it!

Farm of Animals

I first read Animal Farm my junior year of high school, and when I seen it on the list of books we needed for class I was pleased to say the least. Animal Farm is definitely near the top of the list as far as books I've read, Orwell does an amazing job using personification and really putting the history in to the characters of the book. The plot of Animal Farm is written to mimic the Russian Revolution and allegories Joseph Stalin's rise to power under Soviet Communism. Not only does Orwell do an excellent job with the characters of the book, he also shows how the Russian people loved Stalin with a passion, even though he slaughtered any who stood against him. Around 51 million people were killed during the Stalin era from starvation, war, executions, labor camps, and all sorts of other means; while people erected monuments of him. Stalin was definitely one of the greatest leaders as far as building Soviet Russia because he definitely made the Soviets into a world super power. Animal Farm personifies some of the events that made Stalin famous, and how easily some peoples are blinded by their leaders.

An Appeal to the Young

In the reading "An Appeal to the Young," Kropotkin addresses many valid points that COULD happen within certain occupations. He finds quite possibly the worst thing that could go wrong within those given positions, but bad things could come from any occupation. He tries to sway people into thinking that if they adopt their senses for justice, compassing and regard for people around them that they are falling into the views of socialism. He tries to persuade the youth, searching for the right careers, that they will ultimately fail at whichever one they pick, so they should just work to serve the working class and join socialism or they will surely fail in life. It was a very interesting reading, but just a rhetorical viewpoint on the future of the youth.

Marx Communism

The basis of this reading is the separation between the classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisie is the upper class that holds the wealth and is the employer. The proletariat is the working class that basically has no control of the money that they make. The Communist Manifesto discusses the eventual overthrow of the existing economic system and a shake up of the classes. Normally, the lower class would just take over the upper, but the lower class will instead instill a new system of economics. While there are other classes that are fighting against the bourgeoisie, they are only fighting to preserve their own wealth, and not to the degree of the proletariat. Because the proletariat have nothing, they also have nothing to lose. They are a large majority, but have nothing. They are looking to destroy private property. This is where I find my biggest disagreement. I am very much for personal property, and the right to owning something. However, just because somebody has a right to a belonging, they do not have an entitlement to it. It is yours to peruse, and to earn. If I work hard for something, I want to see the benefits of that hard work, and make use of those profits the way I best see fit. 

Communist Manifesto

Personally, I hated this reading. It wasn't very hard to understand but as I was reading it, I was literally shaking my head in disbelief that someone could think like this. He says that people that live in a capitalistic society are close-minded, but is he not being close-minded by saying that?
Marx also states that a capitalistic society couldn't function and would end in destruction or war every time. Man would he be appalled if he were still alive today. No our government isn't perfect, but most us of have a place to live, a car to drive, job opportunists and much more. I was honestly getting mad reading this post. I am in discordant with him pretty much 99%.
The only part of the reading I actually agreed with was in the beginning Marx said that throughout time there have been leader and followers, and that it'll always be that way. I do agree that there are people that are born to lead and that there are people that are born to follow.   

Communist Manifesto

I chose to blog about the Manifesto of the Communist Party even though the reading is a little long and kind of tough to comprehend at first. At the same time I wasn't lost when I was reading because I have some prior knowledge on Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto that he wrote with Friedrich Engels.       I personally am totally against the idea of Communism and I am probably saying that because we have all lived in the free land of America for the most part. I am also saying this because I am not a fan of being overly regulated by the Government 24/7. I also believe its fair that everyone can work really hard and earn their way to their goal as appose to keeping everyone similar in society. The theory of communism helps eliminate the fight between economic classes but also gets rid of people having an opportunity to be at the "top". I think that living in a communist based country would be extremely boring simply because everyone would be similar. One of the reasons that America is so great is because we can live free and be the individuals that we want to be.

Communist Manifesto

In the beginning of the reading, it talks a lot about how the bourgeoisie are far superiour to anyone else. They compel all nations to adobt the bourgeoisie mode of production. Free competition replaced the old system, which is how the bourgeoisie rose to power.

The theory of Communists can be summed up in one sentence: abolition of private property. They do this because property is seen to be the the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. I agree with that statement because property is one thing that peole have sole possession of. We can do whatever we want on our own property because it is ours and when someone takes the away from you they are basically stripping you of your free will. In a communist society, labor will exist for the sake of the laborer not for the sake of producing bourgeois controlled property. Marx also says that they do not want to abolish the education of children but free it from the control of the ruling class.

Communist Manifesto

I didn't particularly like the reading this week. I felt like the reading was pretty hard to comprehend, although I had my moments where I really understood what was going on. I didn't agree with hardly any of what was said in the reading though. I guess understand how the idea of everything being completely equal and fair would seem nice, especially to people who have less than most, but at the same time, I feel like America is built on the idea of working for what you want and earning it, not having it handed to you by the government. So I can't understand how people would honestly think that being spoon fed by their governing body is at all appealing.

manifesto of the communist party

i found reading the manifesto of the communist party slightly hard & really long. it mainly talks about how communism just tries to make everyone equal without any kind of class system. i disagree with what marx was trying to do because i am not a fan of communism. i feel trying to make everyone "one" takes away our individuality and redefines what america is.

marx

After reading the communist manifesto, Not much changed about my outlook of communism. From my understanding the main thing that the communist party fixes is the battle between classes, so that there is no low, middle or high class. I dont agree with this because im a firm believer in you work for what you get. If you work your ass off to make money you deserve this money and if your lazy and dont work, you dont deserve anything. Clashes between classes date back to the begining of civilized society and will go on forever. This to me is human nature there will always be different classes. Also what makes me hate on the communist party even more is the fact that owning your own land is not allowed with many other important possesions that one has to work hard to get. To me there is really not anything better than having your own land, and obviously im not alone in this thought. Most wars in history are fought over land.

Big Issues

How do you get people to surrender their lives to Big Issues? By demonstrating that unless society is fixed, each person's day-to-day is driven to failure. I think that's Kropotkin's approach here. He asks the aspiring doctor what drug can be prescribed for workers deteriorated by poverty; the scientist how his discoveries will ever be applied except in service of wealth; the lawyer how he can defend the poor, who really do break property laws. Instead, Kropotkin urges, all should capital-S Socialists! It's addressed to the young, so perhaps suitably the argument is a bit juvenile. It is the rhetoric of someone who has learned one very effective rhetorical trick, and plans to to show it off.

Marx

I had a very hard time reading this piece. At times I think I understood what it was saying, while at others I had no idea. However, I think this article was trying to support communism and give reasoning as for why it is something that should be allowed. If everything is the same for everyone then what is there to fight about? What is there to be envious about? If there is no "higher" class then everyone is able to live within society peacefully. While this is a good idea in theory, it can never work in reality. First, it says with the higher and lower classes one will try to over throw the other, but there will always be that higher class regardless of the type of government that the people live under. Secondly, while everyone has the same things and there is no competition for anything won't that hinder society’s progress in new inventions and technology? If there is no incentive how can we continue our progress?

Appeal to The Young

    While reading Appeal to The Young at times i was very confused, while other times i thought it was great. The part of the reading that got my attention most was the bottom of page 10 and the top of page 11. Where the whole paragraph is in all caps. I imagine the writter screaming this on top of his lungs just to get his point across about the endless struggle and how people toiler vanily, stumble under the weitght of his burden.
   "To rise from the ranks of the working people, and not devote oneself to the bringing about the triump of socialism, is to misconceive the real interests at stake, to give up cause and the true historic mission." this qoute stood out to me because for someone to rise out of something they have to put work and effort to get out of what they are in. They can't do it half heartedly or it won't be done, that is something i see a lot in our society today. Which makes it look  hard to rise out of something, when you have will power to do it!

Marx

I had a very difficult time understanding this reading although I think I have read parts of it before in High School. The main idea is that Society is split into the Bourgeoisie, capitalist and the Proletariat, workers where The Bourgeoisie control  the modes of production and property and the Proletariat try to overthrow the bourgeoisie supremacy. I do not have a great understanding of communism but this idea makes a lot of sense to me that if you have one group in society has all the control then the group with less power will try to overthrow them in attempt to make things fair and equal.

 

 

Paul Tillich on John Calvin

   Well, I can, with certainty, say that this reading was much harder to follow than what we've read so far. Full of fluffy language where, at times, some of the numerous trips to dictionary.com could've easily been avoided by using much simpler synonyms. Full of seemingly abstract concepts, I sometimes felt the only one who could've thoroughly understood the reading, was the author himself. Nevertheless I believe I was able to grasp, at the very least, the overall gist. John Calvin was a french theologian from the 16th century. When the Protestant reformation was in full motion. Tillech explains Calvin's theories on theological philosophy. Covering such things as providence (the omniscient care and guidance by God), predestination, capitalism and the relationships between church and state.
     Early on, he explains that providence is a thing, and predestination is a the subsequent effect of providence. That everyones existence and life conditions were given to them intentionally by god to fulfill certain effects known only to God himself.....

Wealth of Nations

This was somewhat of a confusing read just because I don't know much about business. However, this read got me to do a lot of thinking. Smith says "One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it" etc..that is true but today machines have replaced man so multiple machines are now doing the work. Basically what I got from book I Chapter VII is that competition between something will determine price for something. It will either rise or fall based on how much of a product is wanted. I liked what Smith said in the very last paragraph "and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him." I found that statement to be very true because no statesman can know what is truly going on in a given situation until they have experienced it. Therefore, an individual in its local situation can judge better.

This read got me to think about business and owners of companies. After thought, I found it interesting how society and business work. For example, I worked for a moving company over the summer making $11/hr working in very hot conditions. I worked with a variety of ages from high school kids to 50 and 60 year old. I am working for beer money, while this is some peoples life long career. I find it messed up that  we are doing all the hard labor while the owner does nothing (pays people to run the business) and is making millions upon millions each year. I know the owner created the company and what not,  I just find it ass backwards that the owner makes the big $$ when we are essentially the ones  making his company run. Just a thought I had that seems odd to me but it is how society works.

A leap of faith - lecture 36

Interesting read on Calvinism in regards to predestination and capitalism.  In regards to the theory of predestination set forth by the will of God; sure, why not.  I like how the author specifies a divine level and a human level.  But, maybe, as suggested in the text, that one would believe in a set chain of predestination; meaning that God's will has multiple predestination's for every individual human on a Divine level and on the human level the human chooses one of many predestined routes to travel designed by a God in which their action on the human level under free will may lead them to a life of good or a life of evil or somewhere in the middle.  Basically, the predestination is set specifically on the divine level but, small, minor changes chosen on the human level within a system comparative to the butterfly effect on a social scale greatly changes the routes on the human level but, are still set and predestined on a divine level.

Also, I would like to comment toward Calvinism and capitalism.  I agree with the author that capitalism predates Calvinism on certain levels and the two are not interchangeable terms or occurrences.  But, I just wanted to comment on a function of capitalism that Calvinism promotes that states one should invest their profits instead of wasting them on glorious living.  I just want to say maybe that is one of the major problems with capitalism today, especially in the west where those who profit use those profits for fancy, outrageous living from the rich, to the middle class, to the poor and all levels in between.  Many in the west squander their profits instead of investing in their societies, in their businesses, in their people and in their futures.  Capitalism and a capitalistic society in general must invest in the system so that capitalism can expand and grow.  If you squander those investments in a capitalistic society then the system cannot expand and grow and it will stall and fail without any forms of intervention.

lecture 36

after reading and re-reading this, i was still pretty confused. it talks a lot about predestination and if god created evil, but i guess i was just mostly confused between Calvin and Luther and their different views.

Wealth of Nations

This reading was very boring but interesting at the same time. I liked it because i care about money and business and it was interesting learning a little about business and labor. I agree when he said people should not look at the nice things they have a look at what they have done in their community because to me wealth is seeing at the end of the day did you make a difference.

Lecture 36

     Lecture 36 is a chapter in Paul Tillich's book The History of Christian Thought. It discusses topics like predestination, good and evil, and providence, while incorporating Calvin's views in with his own, and discussing how they differ.
     Honestly, I'm pretty confused after reading the Lecture. It's not really clear to me which parts are Calvin's beliefs, and which are Tillich's responses and own feelings. Pretty much, Calvin is the founder of Calvinism, obviously, which is sort of an alternate view of Christianity and what it really means. I think John Calvin was really stubborn and didn't want to just follow the same belief system that everyone else was. Because of this, he created Calvinism which takes some of the basic ideas of Christianity and twists and distorts them according to his beliefs.
     Along with most other people I assume, I don't agree with the idea that God created evil. God created man, period. And he created man to have the ability to choose. Man can choose evil, absolutely, but that in no way comes from God Himself. Nothing comes from the Lord, I believe, that isn't directly good or holy. He cannot tolerate unholiness or sin which is why the conscious choice of the opposite of those will result in an everlasting peace with Him in Heaven.
      I think the discussion in class this week will be very interesting!

Wealth of Nations

I am a little confused by the reading. I am pretty sure it was about Smith's belief that the nation could basically run itself but is in danger of lobbyists. Which as far as I know about politics, is relevant today. Really wealthy organizations ,like the RNA, hire people to pay politicians to create bills and laws in favor of their company. This seems to happen often, but I don't think it's legal in any sense. I wish I knew more about this because I would have more of an opinion.

Wealth of Nations

This reading assignment was interesting to me because I am extremely interested in business. In Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, he talks about the basic ideas of what makes a successful business. Some of the ideas he talks about are not buying to much of something if not needed, which is the simple concept of supply and demand. Another was not employing people for a job they don't know how to do, because that would be a waste of money and could possible hurt the business. I thought that this reading was very simple and had a lot of common sense ideas. If business people today would follow Smith's "rules", I am pretty sure that there would be less businesses that would go bankrupt.

Tilich

I found this reading odd because I wasn't sure what Tilich's opinion of Calvin and Calvinism was. I did find it interesting to read Calvin's opinion of the responsibilities of the state versus Luther's ideas on the same topic. Personally, I dont understand how Calvin could simultaneously think that man's fate is not his to control, and so he may have no hope of salvation, and yet the State should seek to help its citizens. It seems rather contrary that Luther, who isn't as extreme as Calvin, would propose that the State's only responsibility is to deter chaos.

Wealth Of Nations

I did not enjoy the reading this week. I am less than enthusiastic about anything relating to business. It bores me. But, once I got past my dislike for the subject that Smith was writing about, I found that I actually understood and fully agreed with the points that he was making. The rules that Smith has for business are simple, but also effective. They, at first, seemed almost too simple to me, but I also see why, when put in to practice, they would be so profitable for those using them. Smith's ideas, to me, boiled down to doing what you know and not making more than you can sell, which make complete sense, but also caught me off guard at their simplicity. So, although I did not particularly like the subject of the reading, I did agree with its message.

Smith - Wealth of Nations

I'm never really interested in any of these readings that much, but this one was okay. They kinda talk about assembly line in the beginning of the reading and how some places use a lot of people giving each person one task while other places might use less people giving them more tasks to complete. I've had many discussions on which is more effective and I've never come up with a good answer, so reading this helped me understand which is better. I found the whole part about market pricing boring. My parents just sold their house this past August and hearing about the the pricing and renting prices and stuff like that just confused me and made me not want to own a house later and life because I don't want to deal with that. Overall the reading was eh it should be interesting discussing the reading in class talking about importing goods, labor, and markets.

Wealth of Nations

I had a very difficult time understanding this reading. The main idea that I got from the reading was Smiths belief that the government is ultimately able to run itself when left with substantial freedom  however, is threatened by monopolies, tax preferences, lobbying groups, and other privileges that are given to some people but not others. I thought this was one of the major points that Smith was trying to make but I honestly don’t think I know enough about politics to be able to say whether or not I agree with this idea of his. It seems as though it makes sense that the government is capable of running itself just by people making money and spending money, keeping things in some sort of regulation but at the same time I don’t think people would be able to keep the government in any sort of order without the other things we have in place today such as laws and higher officials that take charge.

Lecture 36

Religion seems to be a touchy subject for a lot of people. I know that the responses this week will be interesting. I don't like the idea that god creates evil because I think he tries to stop all evil. I think that god creates all things for the good. I like to hear other peoples thoughts and I respect everyones beliefs but i disagree with some of the things discussed in this lecture. For example i don't think that the body is a pointless prison for the soul. I think that the body is the way you live and without it you would to be able to experience life. I liked this lecture because it made me think a lot about beliefs and and the after life.

Lecture 36

This is going to be quite a controversial discussion. First, I do not believe in predestination. I agree when he says that "everything happens for a reason" but I do not believe that this are predetermined for us in life. If that is the case, then what is the purpose of having free will? Secondly, I'm mixed on God creating evil. God is the creator of all things, then could it be possible that in that he created evil? I'm leaning towards no. But I definitely do not think that God uses people to perform evil tasks, isn't that Satan's job? To be honest, I did not enjoy this reading.

Tillich lecture 36 was interesting to read, some parts made me confused while others I agreed with and understood. For example i this qoute "We shall never be clearly convinced. . . that our salvation flows from the fountain of God's free mercy till we are acquainted with His eternal election,which illustrates the grace of God by this comparison, that He adopts not all promiscuously to the hope of salvation but gives to some what He refuses to others". Honestly i dont understand what his eternal election which illustreates the grace of God means. This was a very contriversial read which was hard for me because i grew up learning the opposite of what it was saying about Christianity but at the same time it was cool seeing a different perspective.

Wealth of Nations

This reading was a little hard to follow for me. I understand that supply and demand feed off of each other, as well as the price fluctuating based on the demand. The rest of the article seemed to be repetitive and the way Smith describes the division of the wealth of nations was slightly confusing at times. I look forward to a little more explanation in class this week. 

wealth of nations

This article was very hard to understand. At times I just wanted to throw it down and stop reading it. It was very confusing and did not make a lot of sense while reading. From what I understood from the article was that this was ways to better our nation. By gaining wealth over other countries. It listed many rules that today would be common sense. It that could have been why I did not enjoy this reading this week because it was expected.

Predestination Lecture 36

What I got out this reading is that the reason bad things happen is because of sin. That God will do what he does because he is God. That our body is just the prison of our soul. I kind of see Calvin's point in that there is something greater for us out there and that maybe our actions will be the decisive factor of what we get. I'm still trying to understand what I read but I kind of understand where he's coming from.

Wealth of Nations

I think Adam Smith's ideas and the Wealth of Nations helped contribute to how economic systems is run today and these ideas also helped influenced other important people back in that time period. If it weren't for Smith's ideas, economic systems around the world might have been different today.

Wealth Of Nations

This reading was not on of my favorites because it was very broken up and it felt like there was not a lot of flow. When the reading are less broken up it is easier for me to understand. Although the reading was hard to follow the content for the most part was easy to understand because Smith gave us some perspectives to be aware of in terms of the workers industry. Like nowadays we really do not have many factory jobs anymore because we have machines that do the work for us and we just need people to make sure those machines are working right. I think that Smith's point about everyone learning how we need to work together was a really go one because of the crisis that we are in as a nation. If everyone learned to do their job to the best of their ability and push each other toward a common goal this nation would thrive because we would have no other choice than to succeed.

Lecture 36

I didn't like this reading very much. I can't decide if I like Calvin and what he says or if I don't like it. I didn't like the idea that God creates evil. I think that happens on its own. I also do not like the idea of predestination specifically, however I do like the saying "everything happens for a reason", which could be along the lines of predestination. I did not like the line "The body is a valueless prison of the soul." I do not agree with this part of what Calvin says. I think the body is not valueless. Without it how could you how your soul and your spirit? It is a way to express yourself to others. It is what we live our lives in. With this as one of the main things, I found myself disagreeing with many of Calvin's points and Calvinism in general.

Wealth of Nations

After reading Wealth of Nations I was very confused.  First I didn't like how the context was so broken up because I just honestly like reading it all together.  Second I thought the reading was very tedious.  I felt myself reading words and sentences over and over again, but I really did have a hard time understanding it.  You can basically say this was not my favorite reading for the week. As for the content itself as far as I understood it I think it was interesting and helpful to compare to what labor is like today.  Since we are in major economic crisis I think people should take into consideration about what Smith says about producing more than the person can sell and working together to get the best results.

Lecture 36

From the very beginning of this lecture, I could tell that there was going to be some controversy in the posts for this week. Because most of us are Christians or something similar in this class, we struggle with a few of the ideas in the lecture. One of them is that God has created all things, and that includes evil. He mad certain men evil with relation to His will. Although His will is what causes them to be evil in their actions, their actions go against His commands. With this, it basically is saying that He is condemning them from the start. Another thing sure to cause some controversy and ill feelings is predestination. This is the idea that one cannot choose whether or not he goes to hell or heaven, it has already been decided since before his birth. There is no way to decide that you will go to heaven, no matter how pious, virtuous, or religious you are. Personally, I do not believe that this is the way things work. I have always been taught that God created all things to be good in nature and gave men the power of free will. While He is still omniscient and knows what is going to happen to us in the end, it is not His choice. He gives us the ability to choose sin or virtue, and that is our greatest test. With that, when we choose to sin, it is our own fault. And the same goes for when we choose Him and choose to be virtuous: it is our choice to be closer to Him and following His will- and that is the greatest thing about it.

Tillich - Lecture 36

The big picture of this weeks reading was Calvin's idea about predestination. Calvin says that God has determined the good and evil that each individual will commit throughout their life time at birth. I believe Calvin's first statement that God has a plan for each and everyone of us, however, I don't believe God controls people. People are given opportunities. I also don't see how God makes any evil acts upon people.

Wealth of Nations

I'd like to preface this blog by saying that after reading An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, my brain is the consistency of soup.  For some reason, I could not get into this piece to save my life.  Although I'm sure it's very useful knowledge to have, I grew more bored by the second, and almost didn't make it to the end; this is perhaps why I dropped my original business major. My understanding of this pieces was that it was a sort of instruction manual for how a nation becomes successful and gains wealth, but to my surprise it was just about how successful nations are internally structured. That may sound slightly redundant to those who have not yet read Wealth of Nations, but I promise you it makes sense, and if not I apologize because as I've said, my brain is soup.
   A lot of this piece consisted of things that I assumed to be common sense, but apparently needed to be written down in order to be remembered.  A few of these 'rules' as I guess they're called are simple things like 'don't produce more than the consumers demand,' and 'have people do the job they know.'  To explain these rules slightly better, I'll use the example of ice-cream cones. The man selling ice-cream  should not make more cones than are demanded by the customers. For example, if there are 4 children asking for 1 ice-cream cone each, it'd be silly for him to assemble 10 cones because 6 would melt, be useless, and actually cost the vendor money on losses. This rule is commonly known as 'supply and demand.'  The second rule I pointed out was the 'do what you know' rule.  By this I mean that various people with various skills come together to make one creation.  An example for this would be kids working on a school project: there are 4 kids, one good at art, one good at research, one good at writing, and one good at presenting. If the project consists of drawing a picture, doing research, writing a paper, and presenting the project to the class, it would save time and effort if each student takes the role that applies to their skill. This would be much  more practical than everyone doing the project on their own and turning in less impressive work.
     To me, all of the rules in the Wealth of Nations seem like common sense, and I was therefore bored out of my mind while reading it.  I'm not a fan of this piece because I could in no way relate to it, but I'm hoping that applying it to something in class will make it more interesting.

Lecture 36

So I am a Christian, but I am also an open-minded person. I respect all other beliefs and I feel that everyone should be same for beliefs that aren't like their own. In this reading, Calvin speaks of predestination. I personally believe that God has a plan for me and in the reading it says that God is the dictator of our good and our evil. What I have been raised to believe is not that God makes our every move for us, but that our final steps are predetermined by Him. It's not like we are puppets on strings. We have our own free will, but God already knows the steps we will take in life, he is not making them for us because it is our decisions in life that will take us to heaven or hell. Calvin also mentions that God makes us do not only the good , but the wrong too. God doesn't MAKE us do anything, and from a Christian standpoint I believe that if that were true, there would be no need for Satan. So I disagree with most of Calvin's theories, but that's not to say that someone else might see them differently.

The Wealth of Nations

   Book I focused on developing the idea of the division of labor, and describing how this division adds to the wealth of a given society by creating enormous surpluses. The division of labor also fuels technological productions, by focusing specifically on one task, and allowing workers to come up with ways to do these tasks quicker. I think these surpluses are for a good cause and will end up making more money because of how popular technology is becoming. We need the money to improve our knowledge to enhance the technology we have to get jobs done quicker.
   In book IV Smith criticizes mercantilism because he believes wealth should not be measured in precious golds but instead a stream of goods and services that the nation creates. This is absolutely true I am in total agreement with Smith, people should not look at there wealth as how much nice things they have but instead on what they have done with their commmunity.

Rousseau

I as not expecting this reading to be very interesting, however, I found it to be pretty controversial, therefore interesting in my book. I can understand how this was the root cause of major debate in its day, considering it still can be. I can also understand how some religious individuals may be offended by the reading. I disagreed and agreed with parts of the reading, over all I would say I disagreed with the majority of it. I have my own beliefs regarding fairy tales.

The Wealth of Nations

I really enjoy reading this text by Adam Smith. I had to read a good portion of it in high school for one of my economics classes, and back then I thought it was waaaaaay too complex to fully comprehend (or this could be due to my apathetic nature) but I went back last year and tried to re-read some of the major chapters for one of my other political science classes and it made sense. I also noticed when reading this that this is almost word for word how the Ford Automobile industry started off with its famous new technology, the assembly line. The assembly line works well because of the division of labor. You have a bunch of people doing a small task that plays a key role in the total construction of the automobile and it becomes alot more efficient than having a bunch of people trying to build a car on their own. But at the same time there are very extreme cases where the government needs to step in (i.e. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair) So i really enjoyed this reading. GO CAPITALISM

Not one of my favorites out of our readings so far. I used to be a "hard-core Christian" for a couple years, and this reading just drives me crazy on certain points. Honestly, my beliefs are wavering right now, but I still think some of the aspects in this reading are just flat dumb. I know I'm probably going to rant more than anything, but this is what I believe.

First off, I despise the whole predestination belief. Why do we have a free will if our destiny is already set? I think that we shape our destiny everyday by our actions with other people, and our actions over-all. I totally disagree that God uses people for evil, if God is the one that does all that, why would you need the devil? From how I see it, predestination goes against a lot of Christian beliefs. I completely disagree with Calvin's beliefs, I may be biased, but that's why I have my own feelings.

Lecture 36

So immediately starting this article I did not like it. I am for freedom of speech, but I don't like that much of disrespect towards my own religion. This Calvin guy and I would not be able to be friends in reality. I understand he makes some valid arguments that from a non-religious view could be seen as logical, "He creates light and darkness, that he forms good and evil, and that no evil occurs which He has not performed"(1). However, from a religious view this can taken as majorly offensive, especially if you were raised in a family where God is good and only Satan is bad, not God is both. All in all I found this article fairly insulting, that someone could so openly tear down Christianity and call it just "human weakness", and did not enjoy reading it. I understand there are other views of the world and of religion than that in which I grew up with, but that does not mean I enjoy reading their opinions.

 

However, I can see this article being of high debate during its time period to present day. I can also see how it challenged the church and the public about their beliefs. In a way Tillich reminds me of Socrates, Tillich speaks out against popular belief and challenges that in which they believe in. This makes them uncomfortable, but at the same time opens up their minds to other ideas outside of the only thing they know to be right.

social contract

Rousseau's outook on slavery and nature were intresting to me. He says "Men are born free, yet everywhere  are in chains". I Thought this was a good quote because it is so true. Back in his time and today in present day. All men are born free, but there are powers and forces that subject men into slavery. I think Rousseau is trying to say that slavery is not natural. He explains that the only natural slavery is between a father and son, in where the father gives his kids rules and guidlines out of love to help them grow up to how they need to be.

hobbes

I enjoyed reading about Hobbes and his pessimistic views. I thought that it was interesting how he sid that every man is equal in power and that even the week can kill the strong. Hobbes wants people to go on past experiences to compare to his views. He also mentioned that where there is no common power there is no law. Meaning that there should be a common power because it is disorganized without one. The right of nature is the liberty any person has to do anything in there power for self preservation. His first two laws of fundamental law are to seek peace and follow it and to lay down the right of nature. Meaning that you should not go by doing anything to get what you want was long as others agree to do the same. I enjoyed the reading more than the past readings.

Hobbes

This reading assignment was the most interesting reading that we have had so far. This assignment actually had me wanting to keep reading. Hobbes talks about the “Natural Laws” and how it is a humans fundamental right to treat others good to create a more peaceful world.  He says “Do unto others, as you would have them do to you”, this is important concept that many people in our society do not follow. People in today’s society really don’t give a crap about anyone else but themselves. If we lived our lives more by Hobbes laws then the world would be peace fuller and it wouldn’t be so much hate. Hobbes also talks about the difference in liberty and law. He said that a law is something that you have to do while a liberty is something you are giving the right to do. I believe the difference in these two is important because a lot of times people think that everything is a law and you are forced to do everything but in reality you have to choice to or not. This reading was informal and a good read overall, and I enjoyed it. 

Don't do to someone else anything that you wouldn't want done to you!

Thomas Hobbes is a brilliant man and humble!  I really believe Hobbes thought himself none the wiser then any other man in general.  I think Hobbes is right in most regards but, I am not going to discuss the religion aspect Hobbes wrote about in regards to the laws of nature.  Where to begin with the chapters in Leviathan concerning Natural Laws?  I suppose I will start with the biggest groupings and work my way down to the individual in regards to survival and natural laws.  Natural Laws are applicable when men allow themselves to be governed by a sovereign and that is exactly the world system in place today.  The International System of Sovereign States is the largest grouping I can think of in regards to governing and civil society.  The International System of Sovereign States is in anarchy(no world government) and this is where I believe Hobbes' three principal causes of discord come into action on this grand scale.  Since the system is in anarchy at this level and all of the world's nations have not submitted to a higher sovereign it creates a constant state of war where all of these nations are in competition, many nations distrust each other and some nations are seeking glory because as Hobbes states, "...that for as long as men live without a common power to keep them in awe, they are in the condition known as war."  I'd say this is applicable and a great example of a larger scale of what Hobbes was referring to.  I know Hobbes may have never seen it on such a large scale given his general time period but, maybe he did and if he did not then I still find it to be an accurate comparison.  I do believe however, that a common power has arisen to keep the International System of Sovereign States in check to a degree, in fear of punishment for their actions and that common power is the international system of trade. Globalization, the world economy, is acting as the common power to keep all nations in "awe" thus forwarding many nations to "seek peace and follow it" even though all do not and are at war instead. Fear of death of their economies and their sovereignty reigns nations in on some level even though at the international level the world is anarchy. 

Now to the individual people within these nations.  Clearly, since these people are already in the nations they have submitted to a sovereign either by choice or by default.  These individuals now have laws to abide by so now the natural laws described by Hobbes can now take effect and work as described within the chapters.  The 19 natural laws spoken of can now be set in motion to operate a civilized society.  I could go through all 19 laws of nature described by Hobbes but, I do not need to for two reasons.  One being that anyone reading this, by default, is of equal intellect as myself(Hobbes states that all humans are of equal intellect and strength) and the second reason is because Hobbes already summed it up beautifully for those too busy or careless to have read it for themselves; "Don't do to someone else anything that you wouldn't want done to you." - Thomas Hobbes

Hobbes

Hobbes believes very strongly that men are constantly in competition with each other for power and are never satisfied, we always want more. Therefore we are always in a power struggle with others. I find this to be somewhat true but it very much depends on the person. It seems as though some men are satisfied with what they have and do not crave more than they need but others are never fully satisfied and always want more. Hobbes seems to categorize all men as being the same but really most people are not power hungry and are fine having a small happy life even though that is a very hard thing to have in this society when everything is meant to be bigger and better and you are socially expected to keep up with it.

The Social Contract

Rousseau is a very smart writer, this writing really spoke to me but still has me confused about some things that is unanswered. I really agree with the fact that the only authority a man has naturally is the power. I can really see that especially now a days because I see men, as soon as their children are born they take responsibility with out a doubt to take care of what is theirs.

In chapter 13 I really liked how the reading started with the weakest man can still kill the strongest man because it’s true. I agree that competition, distrust, and glory are behind every bad thing that happens; people want to be better than others, they don't like someone, or they want others to know whose boss. In the reading it asks what we think about our fellow people riding around armed. It honestly doesn’t bother me because I’m totally fine with guns. I’ve been to a shooting range myself and had a lot of fun and I might even try and get a gun myself when I’m older, but who knows. The main point I got from chapter 14 is don’t do to others what you don’t want done to you. I babysit a lot and I have to deal with the kids fighting sometimes and their excuse is always but (name) did it to me first. It difficult for little kids to understand treating people fairly, but to me it’s very important. After I finished the first two chapters it was very difficult to read the 15^th one. I got bored reading about justice and injustice, but I liked how it was tied in the bible to the chapter. The laws were better to read about closer to the end of the chapter and I’m glad it tied back to the quote don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you. I like how chapter 16 was short but I found it boring how it just talked about what people are.

The Social Contract

I found Rousseau's view of slavery a little odd. He talks about how men are not born equal and that their is a chain of order to which people belong. I believe that Rousseau is talking about the Great Chain of Being where God is at the top of the chain followed by the king following an order down to every living thing. It would make sense for Rousseau to believe in this chain because it clearly defines the order of different groups of people.

Rousseau said that "some [men] were born for slavery and others born to be master" and "in their bondage, lose everything, even the desire to be free." I don't know Rousseau's back round, but that just doesn't seem true to me. I think it is an interesting idea that people are born into certain roles, I just don't think everything happens for a specific reason. There are too many bad things that happen in this world for everything to have a reason.

Hobbes

Hobbes discusses a lot about human nature.  People are in a continuous state of conflict and competition with each other.  And according to Hobbes men are by nature equal in their powers.  In addition, Hobbes states that each man has the liberty to make his own decisions in how he wants to use this power with his own life.  This is also stated as the Right of Nature.  Hobbes also introduces us to the Law of Nature which prohibits a man that will harm his ways of preserving his life.  As it states rights should be a choice and laws should pick whether people decided to do it or not. Through our rights come the first law of nature, which has the right to defend ourselves to the extent.  Second law of nature states that during self-defense a man should be allowed to lie down his right to stand up against others who are against him.

My reaction to this is I agree with Hobbes.  People should stand up and defend their rights.  I think people have the right to stand down and make laws to permit wrong doings and people have to obey them. Another interesting topic I caught on from the reading was having a contract and covenant with that person.  To me it is like a promise where you have a law and people if they agree have to keep there word and obey it.  It is our duty to obey our covenants since the award for doing it would override the risk for someone to break it.

Hobbes

I enjoyed reading about Hobbes I found him very interesting. He knew a lot about psychology and human nature. I don’t think I agree with all his believes but he was still a very smart man. I understand that morals are different in different countries but he was very bold about his opinion. I don’t agree that there should always be a higher power controlling us. I think we as a society can make decisions ourselves and not just have one person making them for us. Overall the readings were interesting and I learned a lot.  

Leviathan

I thought the reading this week was the most interesting of all that we have read. The discussions about human nature and how we treat others around us was extremely interesting to me. I think that the ideas that Hobbes had are still so relevant, which shows how smart and forward thinking he was. One thing specifically that stuck out to me was what Hobbes talking about not wronging people and making peace with those around you. I think that so many would benefit from following that rule. If people in this day and age would take a moment to process how what they are preparing to say or do will affect others, there would be a lot less hate in the world. I think that Hobbes fully understood this, and tried to help others understand it.