To what extent is the New Right internally coherent? (45) The New Right is a political movement that was first coined in the USA, but it contains past ideas and ideologies. It is a range of radical right-wing groups and ideologies which advocate laissez-faire economic policies, anti-welfarism, and the belief in the rights of the individual over the common good. The New Right can be said to be internally coherent in a political sense in terms of the compatibility of its goals such as their view on minimal state and the support of the market economy. However, the New Right incorporates neo-liberalism, which is a moderation of liberalism that supports free market economics and the minimal role of the state.
Many intellectuals during the Enlightenment explored new ideas in political economy; Adam Smith in his 1776 An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was one of the most influential figures for the Americans. Smith admitted the mercantile system worked, yet criticized its principles. Expounding a doctrine of individualism, Smith was one of many voices stating that the economy, like the individual, should be free from detailed regulation from the state. Economic, as well as individual, self-interest and its outcome in the market should be allowed to function without state regulation. Although it was indeed approved by the First Continental Congress, the practice of mercantilism was replaced with a Smith-oriented form of liberalism in post-Revolutionary
The political orientation of the researchers was liberal, and the research method was the mapping of social inequalities in educational outcomes using quantitative techniques to measure social mobility. Such an approach was 'liberal' in that inequality was opposed but its source was not, unlike the Marxists, located in the social structure. Modern societies were seen as inherently progressive and it was only archaic elements, such as class, that inhibits progress. Modification of these difficulties would produce restructure. The difficulty with this approach, as it later became clear, was that the problems identified by liberal sociologists set many educators to work in opposition to working class cultural practices.
The ALP supports a market capitalist economy under a liberal democratic government. Although being Capitalist, the Labor Party still display socialist sentiments in using Government to eliminate exploitation, injustice and other anti-social features of a market economy. Therefore, it is cannot be justified as a socialist party 5. What evidence is there to suggest that the ALP moved towards the centre of the political spectrum while in Federal office during 1983 – 1996? During the 1983-1996 at the ALP, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were leaders.
"Anarchism is closer to liberalism than it is socialism" Discuss. [45] To establish whether anarchism is more similar to either liberalism or socialism we must understand the extent to which these ideologies share core beliefs and values. Anarchism has been defined by a strong belief in anti-statism, derived from a negative principle of authority, as well as a belief in both personal and economic freedom. There is undoubtedly a degree of overlap between these and core liberal and socialist beliefs. Anarchism can, therefore, be said to occupy a middle ground wherein both socialism and liberalism reach their anti-statist conclusions.
Smith's theories and concepts regarding economics are very much relevant today. Before we examine Smith's ideas, it might be helpful if we actually define economics. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, economics is the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth. It comes from the Greek work oikonomia, which means a person skilled in household management. Although the exact wording varies from author to author, most textbook definitions of economics say economics is “the social science which examines how people choose to use limited or scarce resources in attempting to satisfy their unlimited wants.” In the introduction of The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith states: “Political economy, considered as a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator, proposes two distinct objects: first, to supply a plentiful revenue or product for the people; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services.
Article VII states that certain individuals get certain power- to a Classical Liberal power (in theory) should be distributed and shared; a higher power leads to different classes (like the bourgeois) or to more government, this is not a Classical Liberal ideology. Lastly Article VIII benefits the people but it is meant for the “common good”- not the individual. A Classical Liberal believes it should be all about the individual and that is how we achieve true economic prosperity for all. Classical Liberalism is not an outdated ideology in fact it is still used today. For instance: a Liberal (or Democrat) still believes in small government as well as thinking about the individual and constantly striving to make things better.
The question we all as taxpayers should be asking is whether or not we will see a good return on our investment. The Democratic proposal is a bit more negotiable since the taxpayers would at least own an equity interest in these companies. However, even that modified plan seems too expensive and way too intrusive. We should consider alternative plans that are not quite as intrusive to market mechanisms such as the Lindt plan. The Paulson plan also seems to signal a dangerous shift away from liberal market mechanisms into an age of neo-mercantilism.
Capitalism brought about the industrialisation of modern society, this idea is favoured by Marxists but postmodernists argue that society is not as simple as this. Postmodernism has emerged since the 1970s, in a postmodern society we are defined by what we consume society is not simply one thing but an unstable, fragmented, media saturated global village where image and reality are indistinguishable. Foucault argues that there are no objective criteria that we can use to prove whether a theory is true or false and if we cannot guarantee if knowledge is correct we cannot use it to improve society this view is known as anti foundationalism. Anti foundationalism is based on two key concepts, the enlightenment of achieving progress through true scientific knowledge and any all embracing theory that claims to have the absolute truth about how to create a better society such as Marxism however it is a meta- narrative and is just someone’s version of reality and it is not necessarily the truth so there is no need to accept the claims that the theory makes Postmodernists a reject meta narratives such as Marxism because they have helped create oppressive totalitarian states that have impose their version of the truth on people for example the former soviet union in Russia. Because they believe that all accounts of reality are equally valid so we should therefore recognise and celebrate diversity rather than imposing one
You would think that it was the Reformation or the Renaissance that did all of this but it simply is not true. By embracing science from the trammels of theological tradition the Enlightenment rendered possible the autonomous evolution of modern culture. I want to go over some of the key values that the Enlightenment Age gave us. First it believes in capitalism which is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled. Second it believes in democracy and individualism which is the moral stance, political philosophy, or social outlook that stresses independence and self-reliance.