Two lawmakers introduced a bipartisan measure on August 25 condemning the ring-wing conspiracy theory QAnon a week after President Donald Trump said the theory’s followers “like me very much” and QAnon-linked candidates won Republican congressional primary races across the country. Congressmen Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), and Denver Riggelman (R-VA), said their bill would make it clear the debunked conspiracy theory had no place in the American political mainstream. “Conspiracy theories that falsely blame secret cabals and marginalized groups for the problems of society have long fueled prejudice, violence and terrorism,” Malinowski said. “QAnon and the conspiracy theories it promotes are a danger and a threat that has no place in our country’s politics,” said Riggelman, who lost a Republican primary this year. The measure would condemn QAnon; ask federal law enforcement agencies to remain vigilant against violence provoked by conspiracy theories; and urge Americans to get information from trustworthy sources. The measure must first pass the House Judiciary Committee before it can be considered by the full House of Representatives.
The QAnon conspiracy theory, which the FBI has called a domestic terrorism threat, is based on unfounded claims that there is a “deep state” apparatus run by political elites, business leaders and Hollywood celebrities who are also pedophiles and actively working against President Donald Trump. The measure cites several incidents where QAnon adherents were linked to crimes they claimed were inspired by their beliefs, including the 2018 arrest of a man who plotted to plant a bomb in the Illinois Capitol Rotunda to raise awareness of the conspiracy theory. Political leaders have denounced the conspiracy theories. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said on Fox News last week, “There is no place for QAnon in the Republican Party.” And White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany dismissed the idea last week that the President supported the theory.
Despite the negative overall reaction to the QAnon conspiracy theory, several QAnon-linked candidates have nevertheless won Republican congressional primaries this year. One candidate, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is likely to win the general election in her staunchly Republican district in northwestern Georgia. President Donald Trump called her a “future Republican Star” in a Twitter Post after her primary win, though Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Trump had not “done a deep dive into the statements” of Greene. President Trump said at his press briefing on August 19 that he did not know much about QAnon other than that “they like me very much, which I appreciate.” “These are people that don’t like seeing what’s going on in places like Portland, Chicago and New York and other cities and states,” he told reporters. “I’ve heard these are people that love our country.” When a reporter further explained the theory to Trump, including the belief that Trump is secretly saving the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals, Trump responded: “Is that supposed to be a bad thing? If I can help save the world from problems I’m willing to do it, I’m willing to put myself out there.”
Congratulations to future Republican Star Marjorie Taylor Greene on a big Congressional primary win in Georgia against a very tough and smart opponent. Marjorie is strong on everything and never gives up – a real WINNER!
George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) is a major figure in Philosophy and (along with Willam James and John Dewey), is one of the founders of Pragmatism, a philosophical approach based on experimentation. Mead published numerous articles during his lifetime and several of his students produced four books in his name from his unpublished notes and stenographic records of his courses at the University of Chicago. Through his teaching, writing, and posthumous publications, Mead has exercised a significant influence in 20th Century social theory. Mead’s theory of the emergence of mind and self out of the social process of significant communication has become the foundation of the symbolic interactionist school of thought in philosophy.
George Herbert Mead is most well known for his theory of the self, which was presented in the 1934 book Mind, Self, and Society (published posthumously and edited by Charles W. Morris). Mead’s theory of personal identity maintains that the conception a person holds of themselves in their mind emerges from social interaction with others. This concept goes directly against the concept of biological determinism because it holds that an individual’s traits are not present at birth or fully present at the beginning of a social interaction, but are constructed and reconstructed in the process of social experience and activity.
George Herbert Mead believed in interaction based on symbols and hypothesized that we do not know who we are until we interact with other people
The self, according to Mead, is made of two components: the “I” and the “me.” The “me” represents the expectations and attitudes of others (the “generalized other”) organized into a social self. From this point, the individual defines their own behavior with reference to the generalized attitude of the social groups they occupy. When the individual can view himself or herself from the standpoint of the generalized other, self-consciousness in the full sense of the term is attained. From this standpoint, the generalized other (internalized in the “me”) is the major instrument of social control, for it is the mechanism by which the community exercises control over the conduct of its individual members. On the other hand, the “I” is the response to the “me,” or the person’s individuality.
Within Mead’s theory, there are three activities through which the self is developed (language, play, and game). Language allows individuals to take on the “role of the other” and allows people to respond to his or her own gestures in terms of the symbolized attitudes of others. During play, individuals take on the roles of other people and pretend to be those other people in order to express the expectations of significant others. This process of role-playing is key to the generation of self-consciousness and to the general development of the self. In the game, the individual is required to internalize the roles of all others who are involved with him or her in the game and must comprehend the rules of the game.
Mead theorized that human beings begin their understanding of the social world through “play” and “game”. The “play” stage comes first in the child’s development. The child takes different roles they observe in society and play them out to gain an understanding of the different social roles. As a result, the child learns to become both subject and object and begins to become able to build a self. However, this is a limited self because the child can only take the role of distinct and separate others and still lack a more general and organized sense of themselves. In the game stage, a person is required to develop a full sense of self. Whereas in the play stage the child takes on the role of distinct others, in the game stage, the child must take the role of everyone else involved in the game. Furthermore, these roles must have a definite relationship to one another.
In the game stage, some form of social organization begins and defined personalities start to emerge. Individuals begin to become able to function in organized groups and determine what they will do within a specific group. Mead calls this the child’s first encounter with the “generalized other.” The “generalized other” can be thought of as understanding the given activity and the actors’ place within the activity from the perspective of all the others engaged in the activity. Through understanding the “generalized other” the individual understands what kind of behavior is expected and appropriate in different social settings.
It has been argued that social acts (such as games and routine forms of social interaction) enable perspective taking through ‘position exchange’ Assuming that games and routine social acts have differentiated social positions and that these positions create our cognitive perspectives, then it might be that by moving between roles in a game, we come to learn about the perspective of the other. This new interpretation of Mead’s account of taking the perspective of the other has experimental support.
In addition to his contributions in the realm of social philosophy, Mead is well known for his work on the philosophy of science. Mead sought to find the psychological origin of science in the efforts of individuals to attain power over their environment. The notion of a physical object arises out of a manipulatory experience. There is a social relation to inanimate objects, for the organism takes the role of things that it manipulates directly, or that it manipulates indirectly in perception. For example, in taking the resistant role of a solid object, an individual obtains cognition of what makes up nonliving things. Historically, the concept of the physical object arose from an animistic conception of the universe.
Contact experience includes experiences of position, balance, and support, and these are used by the organism when it creates its conceptions of the physical world. Our scientific concepts of space, time, and mass are abstracted from manipulatory experience. Such concepts as that of the electron are also derived from manipulation. In developing a science we construct hypothetical objects in order to assist ourselves in controlling nature. The conception of the present as a distinct unit of experience, rather than as a process of becoming and disappearing, is devised to facilitate exact measurement. In the scientific worldview, immediate experience is replaced by theoretical constructs. The ultimate in experience, however, is the manipulation and contact at the completion of an act.
One of the most significant political theorists in recent memory is Noam Chomsky. Noam Chomsky is known for his contributions to linguistics, philosophy, history, and political discourse. Most notably, Chomsky is a proponent of the political ideologies of Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism, which are critical of centralized governmental and societal institutions and call for decentralized power structures. Chomsky was influenced by many sources ranging from philosophers such as William Goodwin to political theorists and economists such as Karl Marx. Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism are two political theories that are not widely explored by mainstream political theorists and philosophers. Despite the lack of understanding behind both theories, Noam Chomsky continues to have an influence on politics at all levels and is widely considered to be one of the most influential political theorists of the last few decades.
Noam Chomsky was born in Philadelphia on December 7, 1928. Chomsky grew up during the depths of the Great Depression alongside his younger brother David in a middle-class family. During his upbringing, Chomsky witnessed massive worker strikes and substantial political reform pushed forward by the government at all levels. His mother, Elsie Chomsky had been involved in the radical politics of the time and was a noted political activist within their community. Chomsky attended a progressive school and wrote a well-researched paper on the Spanish Civil War at the age of 10. Additionally, Chomsky was influenced politically by his uncle, who owned a newsstand where politics were frequently discussed.
At the age of 16, Chomsky graduated high school and soon enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania, where he excelled in classes in diverse subjects such as linguistics, philosophy, and mathematics. During his time at the University of Pennsylvania, Chomsky read works by figures such as Nathan Fine, Nelson Goodman, and W. V. Quine. These experiences made Chomsky come to the conclusion that human language was innate in every human’s mind and that language is influenced by the environment and evolves accordingly. Chomsky’s master’s thesis The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew focused on the evolution of language. Chomsky eventually received his Ph. D from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955 and began teaching at MIT a year later. During this period, Chomsky became known for works such as the Aspects of the Theory of Syntax and several linguistic theories such as “extended standard theory”, “generative” and “transformational” theories.
Noam Chomsky, circa 1967, in an interview discussing The Responsibility of Intellectuals.
By the 1960s, Chomsky began to make his mark as a political activist due to his opposition to US involvement in the Vietnam War and staunch support for the Civil Rights Movement. In his 1967 essay The Responsibility of Intellectuals, Chomsky denounced the aggressive nature of American foreign policy throughout the world and spoke of the need for the intellectual community to come together to challenge the status quo American foreign policy. Additionally, Chomsky is further known for his book Manufacturing Consent, in which he criticizes American Media as biased and siding with US power structures. Chomsky’s criticisms of the American political system are rooted in the fact that the distribution of power within the US is biased in favor of the wealthiest and most powerful individuals. As a result of such factors, Chomsky has made his life’s work to side with the oppressed and focusing on how different factors such as media coverage impact this unequal balance of power. Chomsky is still active in worldwide political discourse and is frequently interviewed on a diverse array of topics, ranging from political theory to linguistics, to philosophy.
Human Nature
The early 20th Century Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin is one of the main figures who influenced Noam Chomsky’s political philosophy.
Noam Chomsky’s view on human nature is unique in the realm of philosophy. Chomsky believes that humans are innately linked with the natural work. Additionally, Chomsky believes that genes influence any organism, just like bees or geese, and that there are outside factors that enter into any organisms growth and development. Three important factors being the genetic composition, environmental effect, and lastly the way the laws of nature work. Chomsky also notes that there are fundamental roots in human nature and cites the idea of mutual aid. As discussed by the Russian philosopher Peter Kropotkin in the 1902 book Mutual Aid A Factor of Evolution, mutual aid is the voluntary exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit. Chomsky applies this concept to humans to explain why individuals build communities to help each other survive and defend ourselves from outside threats. Chomsky also discusses how many people form their view of human nature from religion and how that can mislead in the fact that we just don’t know have much certainty in human nature. Chomsky believes there must be some kind of framework for mortality and altruism as a base. Chomsky follows and favors the Humboldtian concept of how language forms and how it is a generative process which people use words in an “infinite use of finite means.” This concept views language as more plastic and changing all the time. The change is how we view words and how we interpret our lives with language.
Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism?
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is one of the founders of Anarchist political thought.
Noam Chomsky is known for his views on Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism. Anarchism is the idea of being free and separated from a large federal government. The founder of Anarchist political thought is considered to be Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a 19th-century French political writer, and socialist. Proudhon argued that the real laws of society have nothing to do with authority but rather stem from the nature of society itself. Additionally, he foresaw the eventual dissolution of authority and the emergence of a natural social order.” Proudhon thinks of a society that is organized on an egalitarian basis, with difficult tasks diffused throughout society. This society would also be based on decentralized communities of worker associations and small communities. Decisions and other activities are done in cooperation and common interest rather than laws. Proudhon also rejected Parliamentary systems as ineffective. Another contributor to Anarchist political theory is William Goodwin, an English philosopher active during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Goodwin argued that governmental authority inherently goes against human nature and that social evils exist solely because people cannot act according to reason. As a solution to this predicament, Goodwin feels that a decentralized society of small communities is far more effective in promoting societal peace and stability.
The Israeli kibbutz system is considered to be a possible societal model according to Noam Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky explored this theme in his book On Anarchism. In the book, Chomsky discusses the concept of the kibbutz, a communal form of living seen in many Jewish communities in Israel, where people are highly interdependent and live communally in small villages. The problems of isolation and huge social stigma if you do something wrong on the kibbutz is terrible. It will destroy you if you stray to much from the community. But in Chomsky’s view, it is not perfect and needs to be worked out. Despite his view that collectivism is in many ways beneficial to society as a whole, Noam Chomsky is critical of Marxist political thought. Although Chomsky views Marxism as enabling individuals to reach the point in which they can solve their problems in an effective manner, he also feels that Marxism is, at times, an authoritarian ideology that directly against the ideas of Anarchism such as opposition to centralized power.
Here is an interesting quote discussion Chomsky’s view on Marxism:
“Actually, I’m not a great ethousists of Marx, but what he one comment he made seems appropriate here. I’m quoting him… but somewhere or other he said: socialism is an effort to try to solves man’s animal problems, and after having solved the animal problems, then we can face the human problems..socialism is an effort to get you to the point where you can face human problems”.
Throughout his writings, Noam Chomsky shows contempt for the modern system of capitalism, viewing it as an imperfect and flawed system, Much like with all systems and societal structures, Chomsky feels that the capitalist system can be improved through experimentation, but that a system based on Anarchism is perhaps the system that should be the goal of society to eventually move towards. William Goodwin, an English Anarchist, makes classical anarchist arguments that authority is against human nature and that social evil exists because people cannot act according to reason which is why a decentralized society of small communities is more natural and more effective. Chomsky belief of working inside the system (liberal reform) and radically changing the system (Marxist), can be confusing and at times hard to understand.
The Economic, The Political and the Social
Noam Chomsky is a self-described Anarcho-Syndicalist and is sympathetic to many of the ideas promoted in Libertarian Socialism. Chomsky wrote On Anarchism which discussed many of his thoughts on Anarchism, as well as the ideas unique to his own political philosophy. Chomsky’s works have been influenced by many different political perspectives, ranging from the more radical perspectives such as Marxism to Libertarianism. Chomsky was highly influenced by Anarchist theorists such as Goodwin and Proudhon. Chomsky does not believe there is a contradiction between pursuing certain reforms such as social welfare programs and single-payer health care systems that expand state power but benefit the public, to long-term implementation of increasingly Democratic institutions over time that gives workers more power until the point of system overthrow. The view held by Chomsky is that power is inherently evil in nature and that the federal government, while holding much power and often being illegitimate in terms of its overall structure, serves the purposes of protecting people from rampant, unregulated capitalism. An example of this philosophy could be the EPA stopping General Motors from poisoning rivers in Michigan, it would be very difficult for average citizens to undertake that. While the federal government structure, a tyranny in itself might be illegitimate, a private tyranny is worse and can only be checked by the power of a strong and active federal government.
In order to illustrate this point, Noam Chomsky uses an interesting metaphor:
“I’m not in favor of people being in cages. On the other hand I think people ought to be in cages if there’s a saber-toothed tiger wandering around outside and if they go out of the cage the saber-toothed tiger will kill them. So sometimes there’s a justification for cages. That doesn’t mean cages are good things. State power is a good example of a necessary cage. There are saber-toothed tigers outside; they are called transnational corporations which are among the most tyrannical totalitarian institutions that human society has devised. And there is a cage, namely the state, which to some extent is under popular control. The cage is protecting people from predatory tyrannies so there is a temporary need to maintain the cage, and even to extend the cage”.
Chomsky points to a broad range of examples for a basic moral philosophy that seems self-evident to people around the world on issues that directly affect them. This is a very bare bones again, not a judgment on human nature as good but having some kind of structure. Something similar to the golden rule appears in many societies and a conceptualization of right and wrong that does not allow for some level of abuse. An example could be small peasant farmers in Guatemala condemning Nestle for buying up their water supply, which results in water shortages and an angry. He would say that is a human reaction to something perceived as an unfair use of resources that belong to the community. Chomsky often points on examples of corporate greed in his works and how people believe it is immoral. A company like Exxon spilling thousands of barrels of oil into the ocean and getting to write it off for taxes and some years not paying taxes, as one of the largest corporations of the world, he would say humans naturally believe something like that is inherently unfair and wrong.
Chomsky has largely favored worker coops and companies like the Mondragon Corporation in Spain which came out of the period of Spanish Civil War in the 1930s. Chomsky views worker coops, or worker councils, workers managing the company and often owning the company equally as a style of capitalism to push as a short-term solution. Gar Alperovitz is considered similar where he has been helping create worker coops in Ohio. Chomsky is not in favor of capitalism nor is he in favor of markets. He often cites the fact that true markets do not exist and that when markets do exist, companies are often heavily subsidized or there is little to no competition. An example of this in the realm of international politics would be third world nations being prevented by larger powers from developing and having to rely on outside powers to subsidize them and provide them only a meager existence. Chomsky is critical of Neo-liberalism and its policies across the globe, noting that these politicians do little more than enrich the power elite at the expense of poor and vulnerable people. Instead, Chomsky favors a model based in part on Contemporary Liberalism because it does far more to help ordinary people throughout the world and helps to equalize the distribution of power and resources.
Here is an example of Noam Chomsky discussing the negative effects of Neo-liberal economic policies after the 2008 economic crisis:
“So, for example, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, at the time when he was still “Saint Alan” – hailed by the economics profession as one of the greatest economists of all time (this was before the crash for which he was substantially responsible) – was testifying to Congress in the Clinton years, and he explained the wonders of the great economy that he was supervising. He said a lot of its success was based substantially on what he called “growing worker insecurity”. If working people are insecure, if they’re part of the precariat, living precarious existences, they’re not going to make demands, they’re not going to try to get better wages, they won’t get improved benefits. We can kick ’em out, if we don’t need ’em. And that’s what’s called a “healthy” economy, technically speaking. And he was highly praised for this, greatly admired”.
As noted above, “worker insecurity’ is the main theme in Chomsky’s philosophy, where you cannot always seek perfect solutions you seek better ones than neoliberal policies. Authors like Naomi Klein who wrote The Shock Doctrine emphasizes a similar philosophy of how neoliberalism uses various tools to unfairly rig markets to favor often the rich and powerful people. The book emphasizes how neoliberal policies are used to smash economies and push in policies that normally wouldn’t be put into place through “shock and awe”. She brings up the takeover of charter schools after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, where “The Friedmanite American Enterprise Institute enthused that “Katrina accomplished in a day … what Louisiana school reformers couldn’t do after years of trying”, meaning privatize the school systems, which was largely against what the public had previously wanted. Chomsky has seen the transitions from the New Deal to the Clinton years of NAFTA, which he views as very different forms of capitalism requiring different approaches to understand.
Chomsky gives a definition of patriotism that states:
“For those whose instincts are democratic rather than totalitarian, “patriotism” means commitment to the welfare and improvement of the society, its people, its culture. That’s a natural sentiment and one that can be quite positive. It’s one all serious activists share, I presume; otherwise why take the trouble to do what we do? But the kind of “patriotism” fostered by totalitarian societies and military dictatorships, and internalized as second nature by much of intellectual opinion in more free societies, is one of the worst maladies of human history, and will probably do us all in before too long”.
Noam Chomsky views patriotism (depending on the tendency of individuals) as having the potential to do good, often in democratic and local levels, rather than the national level. The view he has of nationalism is highly critical of American foreign policy, which is what he calls jingoistic, especially in the post-9/11 world. Foreign policy should be more measured in Chomsky’s opinion and less focused on the use of force for private gain and instead more on cooperation. Many anarchists and Marxists leaning philosophers have had similar sentiments on war and many were locked up during World War I, the most famous being the 1912 and 1920 Socialist Party Presidential candidate Eugene Debs.
In conclusion, Noam Chomsky is one of the most influential political theorists and philosophers in recent memory and is a leading intellectual force on many different topics. Chomsky is known for promoting the political theories of Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism, which are critical of state power and favor a more decentralized power structure based in part on voluntary institutions. Chomsky holds a philosophy that brings truth to power, stands up for the oppressed, and is rooted in diverse intellectual traditions. Noam Chomsky promotes his ideas through numerous writings on topics such as economics, philosophy, American foreign policy, and political theory. Moreover, Chomsky’s political views were shaped in part by events such as the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the rise in Neo-liberal economic policies during the last few decades of the 20th Century. Chomsky’s political philosophy still remains influential to this very day in the realm of Anarcho-syndicalism and will continue to influence future generations of political scientists and activists alike.
Bibliography
Albert, Michael. “Science, Religion & Human Nature – The Chomsky Sessions – (2).” YouTube. February 2010. Accessed March 01, 2018.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f02gcRrdK2I.
Chomsky, Noam. “A Conversation with Noam Chomsky on Organizing for a Next System.” TheNextSystem.org. March 24, 2016. Accessed March 01, 2018. https://thenextsystem.org/conversation_with_noam_chomsky.
Chomsky, Noam. Chomsky on Anarchism. New York City, NY: The New Press, 2013.
Chomsky, Noam, and Carlos Peregrín Otero. Language and politics. Edinburgh: AK Press U.K., 2004.
Chomsky, Noam. “Noam Chomsky on Patriotism.” Noam Chomsky on Patriotism. November 11, 2002. Accessed March 01, 2018. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/nc_patrio.htm.
Chomsky, Noam. “Old Wine in New Bottles: A Bitter Taste Noam Chomsky.” Old Wine in New Bottles: A Bitter Taste. June 1996. Accessed March 01, 2018.https://chomsky.info/199606__/.
Chomsky, Noam. “Plutonomy and the Precariat: On the History of the US Economy in Decline.” France Al Jazeera. May 16, 2012. Accessed March 01, 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/201251114163762922.html.
Chomsky, Noam. The Responsibility of Intellectuals. New York: The New Press, 2017.
Clark, John P. The Philosophical Anarchism of William Godwin. Princeton: Princeton Legacy Library, 2015.
Clark, John P. “What is Anarchism?” Nomos 19 (1978): 3-28. http://bluehawk.monmouth.edu:2083/stable/24219036.
Edgley, Alison. Social and Political Thought of Noam Chomsky. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013.
Miller, Martin A., George Woodcock, Arif Dirlik, and Franklin Rosemont. “Anarchism.” Encyclopaedia BritanGeorge nica. December 20, 2017. Accessed March 01, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism.
Noland, Aaron. “Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: Socialist as Social Scientist.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 26, no. 3 (1967): 313-28.http://bluehawk.monmouth.edu:2083/stable/3485528.
Noland, Aaron. “Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: Socialist as Social Scientist.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 26, no. 3 (1967): 313-28. http://bluehawk.monmouth.edu:2083/stable/3485528.
O’Neill, Ben. “On “Private Tyrannies” .” Mises Institute. January 22, 2009. Accessed March 01, 2018. https://mises.org/library/private-tyrannies#_ftn12.
Sofroniou, Andrea. International Law, Global Relations, World Powers. S.l., NY: Lulu Com, 2017.
“The Shock Doctrine.” The Shock Doctrine: An Excerpt From the Introduction Naomi Klein. 2008. Accessed March 01, 2018. http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/excerpt.
One of the most important political theorists in Iran over the past century was Ali Shariati. Shariati was a well-known Iranian intellectual active during the 1960s and 1970s. Shariati developed an entirely new perspective on the history, philosophy, and sociology of Islam based in part on Marxist political thought, and gave highly charged lectures that laid the foundation for the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79, which ignited only 7 months after his death at the age of 43.
Ali Shariati was born in the Iranian city of Mashad on November 23, 1933, to a religious family. His father was a teacher and Islamic scholar. From an early age, Shariati came into contact with individuals from the less privileged economic classes and was exposed to the massive levels of poverty and hardship evident within much of Iran during the 1930s and 1940s. At the same time, he was exposed to Western philosophy and political thought. He attempted to provide solutions for the problems faced by Middle Eastern societies through traditional Islamic principles interwoven with the point of view of modern sociology and philosophies such as Marxism and Socialism.
Ali Shariati became a high-school teacher in 1952 and was an active member of the Islamic Association of Students. In 1953, Shariati became a member of the National Front and received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Mashhad in 1955. In 1957, he was arrested by the Iranian police, along with 16 other members of the National Resistance Movement due to his leading a protest critical of the Pahlavi Regime. Shariati managed to obtain a scholarship for France, where he continued his graduate studies at Sorbonne University and worked towards earning his doctorate in sociology. During this period, Shariati started collaborating with the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) in 1959.
In 1961, Ali Shariati founded the Freedom Movement of Iran along with Ebrahim Yazdi, Mostafa Chamran and Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, three individuals who would become the leaders in the first post-revolutionary government of Iran in 1979. Shariat returned to Iran in 1962 and was arrested for taking part in the June 5, 1963, protests against the Iranian government and the rule of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. He was released after a few weeks, at which point he began teaching at the University of Mashhad. Shariati subsequently moved to Tehran, where he began lecturing at the Hosseiniye Ershad Institute. These lectures proved to be hugely popular among his students and were spread by word of mouth throughout all sectors of Iranian society
Shariati’s continued success again aroused the interest of the government, which arrested him in late 1975. Widespread pressure from the populace and an international outcry eventually led to his release after eighteen months in solitary confinement in June of 1977. Shariati was allowed to leave the country for England and d died three weeks later in a Southampton hospital under mysterious circumstances. It is argued by many that his time in captivity within Iran and torture at the hands of SAVAK contributed to his death.
Ali Shariati developed an entirely novel approach to religious study and interpreted Shi’a Islam under the lens of revolutionary ideologies such as Socialism and Marxism. In particular, Shariati discussed the dual aspects of the Shi’a Islam throughout its history. The pure form of Shi’ism was known as Red Shi’ism, which is the pure form of the religion and focuses on social justice and salvation for the common person. Additionally, Red Shi’ism lacks the rituals and an established clerical hierarchy. In contrast, Black Shi’ism is the less pure form of the religion and is under the domination of several distinct groups such as the monarchy, the clerical establishment, and the Bazzari (the traditional merchant class of Iran), thus being out of touch with the needs of the common person. According to Shariati, Black Shi’ism was established in Iran under the Safavid monarchy during the 16th Century and was embodied by the Pahlavi monarchy.
The idea of Red Shi’ism as promoted by Ali Shariati shares some similarities with Liberation Theology, which was established by the Catholic Church in Latin America during the 1960s in response to massive human rights abuses and continued economic inequalities within the region. Liberation Theology stresses the active involvement of religious organizations in addressing social inequalities and promoting the belief that religion can play an active role in improving societal conditions.
Ali Shariati argued that a moral and proper society would conform to Islamic values. Shariati suggested that the role of government was to guide society in the most moral manner rather than to manage society in the best possible manner. Shariati also believed that the most experienced and knowledgeable members of the clergy were the best suited for guiding society due to their in-depth understanding of the Islamic values system. Due to their knowledge of such traditions and beliefs, Shariati felt that the clergy was uniquely suited to advance the individual towards their greatest potential and to not give into to the hedonistic desires of individuals as evident in much of the Western world.
In contrast to Western philosophers such as John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill, Ali Shariati was critical of the idea of liberal democracy, pointing out that the induction of liberal democracy correlates with the plundering of nations for economic reasons. Shariati believed that the idea of liberal democracy is the main enemy of humankind and progress and that the economic structure characteristic of it promotes inequalities and harms the rights of individuals. Shariati does not accept the definition of Democracy based on western explanation and viewed religious government as the best form of democracy. According to Shariati, the religious government is the main right of Muslim citizens in terms of democracy and governmental type because it promotes the highest level of social equality and respects the rights of all citizens regardless of their differences in appearance, status, and social class.
Ali Shariati sought to translate his ideas into the cultural symbols of Shi’a Islam that many Iranian citizens could relate to such as Ashura. Shariati believed that Shi’a’s should not only actively await the return of the Twelfth Imam but should work to hasten his return by fighting for social justice at any cost. Additionally, Shariati believed that people do not have to put away and hide their religious and cultural practices in the fight against imperialism and inequality and that the people could fight such problems the most effectively through the recovering of their cultural and religious identity.
In conclusion, Ali Shariati was one of the most influential Iranian philosophers of the 20th Century. Shariati believed that the application of both Marxism and Islamic principles is the most effective way to address social inequalities and further social justice, and sought to spread his ideas through symbols associated with Shi’a Islam and Iranian culture. Additionally, many of Ali Shariati’s ideas are still influential today and have been used by numerous groups worldwide seeking to create an equal society and move away from the legacies of imperialism and colonialism.
One of the most influential philosophers in recent history is Thomas Hobbes, who was active in Great Britain during the 17th Century. Hobbes was a proponent of social contract ethics, which is the idea that both an individual’s moral and political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live in. During his life, Hobbes published many different works on subjects ranging from political theory, philosophy, and history. The most famous work written by Thomas Hobbes is “Leviathan,” which was written in 1651 in response to the English Civil War, which resulted in the establishment of a parliamentarian system and the reduction in the power of the monarchy. Even though Hobbes rejected the divine right of kings to rule over their citizens, he argued that a powerful king is needed to rule to prevent any instability or societal disorder.
In the chapter “Of the Natural Condition of Mankind as Concerning their Felicity and Misery,” Thomas Hobbes directs his study to that of human nature. An understanding of human nature will allow people to progress from the state of nature to a stable and civilized society. Hobbes noted that people are continuously moved by what they both dislike and like. As such, people have certain ends on their minds that they are seeking to achieve. Because many people desire the same goals, they are in a continual state of competition and conflict with each other. If the appetites of individuals had limits, the conflict between people would not be as complicated. On the other hand, Hobbes claims that people are never satisfied with any amount of power and are thus always in a power struggle with others. Even though it seems that in such a state of nature the strong would triumph over the weak and some natural equilibrium would be instituted, the nature of power distribution prevents this from occurring. According to Hobbes, individuals are by nature equal in their abilities. From such equality in the state of nature arises a perpetual state of continual conflict. Hobbes then argues that without a common power to mediate any disputes, the state of nature is nothing more than a state of perpetual war and conflict.
Thomas Hobbes then goes over the concept of the Laws of Nature in the chapter “Of the first and second Natural Lawes, and of Contracts.” A law of nature is a given rule that is discovered through pure reason. Such laws assert the concept of self-preservation and reject any acts that are ultimately destructive to human life overall. A law of nature is inherently known by every person because natural mental faculties can understand it. The first law of nature stipulates that every person must attempt to promote and seek peace. The next law of nature is that people must divest themselves of individual rights to escape the state of natural war. The mutual transferring of rights as illustrated in the second law of nature is known as a contract and is the primary foundation of the idea of moral obligations. The third law says that people must be required to keep the contract that they make and that it is not enough to only make such contracts. The third law of nature is the foundation for the concept of justice and fairness in the legal system. Because of the inherent desire for increased power, there always exists incentives to break such a contract. Hobbes also states that additional natural laws must come into effect to preserve the functionality of the third law of nature.
In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes explored the ideas of social contract ethics throughout “Leviathan.” Social contract theory is an entirely different branch of ethical theory that explores the idea that moral and political obligations of an individual are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society or governmental system in which they live in. The idea of social contract ethics combines both elements from philosophy, political theory, and history to develop an alternative theory to explain the ethical decisions that people make. Additionally, Hobbes examines the ideas of the state of nature and the laws of nature and determines that both concepts serve to influence the overall stability of certain societies and political systems.
One of the most significant political theories of the 20th Century is Ayn Rands Objectivism. Rand is known for promoting the philosophical idea of objectivism. She defines objectivism as a philosophy that emphasizes personal freedom, individuality, and rational egoism. Her anthology of fiction books describes the political theory of Objectivism through the actions and speeches of the main characters. Her additional non-fiction works continue to explore that political and social philosophy. Rand was influenced by a number of theorists such as Aristotle and writers including Victor Hugo and Edmond Rostand. Objectivism is a controversial political theory and has been criticized by academic philosophers due to its view on the role of government and human nature. On the other hand, the popularity of Rand’s work continues to grow and has an influence on political thought to this very day.
Rand was born as Alissa Rosenbaum in 1905 in St. Petersburg to a middle-class Jewish family. From a young age, she expressed great ambition and an interest in pursuing a career in writing. A singular event that occurred in her early years was the 1917 Russian Revolution, in which the country transitioned almost immediately from a monarchy into a Communist state. She had numerous experiences in Soviet Russia that helped to mold her sociopolitical beliefs. For example, the nationalization of her father’s chemistry shop transitioned her family from relative affluence to poverty. Despite the loss of her family’s assets under the Soviet regime, she was able to attend university and graduate with a degree in history. Changing her name from Alissa Rosenbaum to Ayn Rand, she left the Soviet Union for the United States in 1926 to pursue her dream of becoming a screenwriter. Over the succeeding years, Rand found success first as a screenwriter, and eventually as a playwright and author.
Ayn Rand c. 1930s
An important factor that influenced Rand’s writings over the course of her life was her personal experience in numerous political eras. From monarchy in Russia, to the transition to the Soviet Union, to Great Depression era America, her youth was characterized by many stark contrasts in political and economic systems. Rand’s writings against communism were influenced by what she observed and she wrote numerous works outlining Objectivist theory throughout World War II and the early Cold War era. In response to the Cold War and the threat of Communism spreading worldwide, Rand cautioned against the belief of collectivism in books such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are fictional works that promote the belief in personal freedom and rationality, and speak out against the spread of Communism and Socialism.
Ayn Rand personally cites Aristotle as one of her primary influences. Aristotle was a Greek logician, philosopher, and scientist as well as one of the founders of western political theory. Rand explains, “it is not the special sciences that teach man to think; it is philosophy that lays down the epistemological criteria of all special sciences.” Just as Ayn Rand believed that science was one of the most important values of society, Aristotle argued that politics is the master science because mankind is a political animal. As Aristotle believed in “biology expressed in the naturalism of politics,” his concept of morality and the world aligned with Rand’s concepts of philosophy and politics being inextricably tied to science. Similarly, Aristotle argued that mankind engaged in politics through all of its actions. Rand believed that each person acts as an individual to create the political society that exists. If each individual acts according to the principles and morals of Objectivism, such as those of rational thought and the execution of free will, sociopolitical order will naturally emerge. Aristotle contends that politics is the study of values, ethics, what is right and wrong, what should be, and what could be.
Despite the fact that Rand cited Aristotle as one of her primary influences, their views on the ideal form of government were dissimilar. For example, Aristotle viewed democracy as flawed because it resulted in competition between social classes and felt that the proper form of government consisted of its leaders governing with the common interest of all its people in mind as opposed to governing based on individual interests. Additionally, Aristotle felt that a key role of the government would be to provide for and promote the public good and explored the idea of the organic theory of the state throughout his works. The organic theory of the state theory stipulates that the power and authority of the state transcends the power of the individual. On the contrary, Rand believed that the role of government would be limited to protecting individual rights and serving as an agent for people’s self-defense. A government that promoted the opposite values, according to Rand, has no justification and is the primary threat to the structure and nature of human society.
One of the major values of Objectivism is a belief in rational egoism. Objectivism believes in the “concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” With this, Ayn Rand is saying there is no more important moral goal in Objectivism than that of achieving happiness. Achieving happiness, according to Objectivists, requires rational respect for the facts of reality, including those regarding human nature and our own needs. In order to achieve such goals, Rand argues that people must behave in a way that conforms to “rational egoism,” in which the promotion of one’s self-interest is in accordance with that of reason. Rand further promotes the logic of this theory in The Virtues of Selfishness. Rand argues that selfishness is a proper value to pursue and rejects the idea of altruism, the belief that self-sacrifice is a moral ideal to pursue. Additionally, Rand rejects the idea of “selfless selfishness” of irrationally acting individuals and instead argues that to be ethically selfish entails a commitment to reason rather than to emotionally driven whims and instincts.
In addition, Objectivism promotes a unique view on the nature of reality and views knowledge and reason as important aspects in society. Objectivism holds that “reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.” Rand’s Objectivism begins with three self-evident concepts: existence, consciousness, and identity. All three truths are interconnected and exist simultaneously. Ayn Rand goes on to further explain that anything that is metaphysically given is absolute and cannot be changed. Objectivism holds that all knowledge is reached through reason, the “faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.” This view of reason in an Objectivist society was further exhibited by the main characters and themes in Rand’s 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged. The work dramatizes the idea that the reasoning mind is the basic source of the values on which human life depends.
Furthermore, Rand supported a belief in secularism through Objectivism and also promoted a distinct purpose of morality. Objectivism is a purely secular ideology that views the role of religion as having a negative influence on reason and capitalism. The purpose of morality under Objectivist thought is to allow people to enjoy their own lives. This belief is further exemplified by John Galt, the embodiment of Objectivism in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, when he said, “The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.” Rand felt that religion is an “ideology that opposes man’s enjoyment of his life on earth” and thus, in violation of the key principles expressed though Objectivism. Objectivism rejects both mysticism (the idea that knowledge can be acquired through non-rational means) and skepticism (the belief that knowledge is impossible and cannot be acquired by any means). Objectivism also teaches us that a harmony of interests exists among rational individuals, so that no one’s benefit will come at the expense of another’s. As such, a life of mutual respect and benevolent independence is possible through Objectivism.
Objectivism includes several suggestions as to what constitutes a proper society. One such element is the support for individual rights and freedom from coercion. The ethics of Objectivism hold that each person can live and flourish through the free exercise of his or her rational mind. Unless faced with threats of coercion or force, it is essential for people to exercise their own free will. The threat of force makes people accept someone else’s dictates, rather than follow their own judgment. Rand argues that certain societies, such as that of the Soviet Union, and certain ideologies, such as communism, are doomed to failure due to the lack of individual rights and the use of coercion to limit freedoms. Rand further argues that “freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion” and that societies must secure the principle that no one has the right to use physical force or coercion against any other.
In “Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal,” Rand states, “government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.” Objectivism calls for a limited form of government and promotes the belief that an excessive government is a threat to individual freedom. Additionally, Rand argues that the government also has a role in defending its people from foreign enemies, providing a system for arbitration of disputes, and developing a system for enforcement of the law. Objectivism also argues that the main source of government power comes from “the consent of the governed,” which means that the only rights that the government has are delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.
Objectivism considers Capitalism to be a proper political economy. Rand considered capitalism in its purest form to be a social system characterized by individual freedom and diversity. Additionally, she felt that Capitalism was an egalitarian system that treated all people as individuals with no regard to ethnic, religious, or other collective principles enshrined by law. Moreover, Objectivism, like Capitalism, is a social system based on the recognition of individual private property rights. Objectivism expresses the belief that respect for property rights is key in the development of a capitalist economic system and as a way to ensure the upholding of individual rights and economic freedoms. Property rights are important to Objectivists because they ensure that people can keep what they earn. As Objectivism emphasizes production and creation, the property acquired through hard work is the most essential representation of the exercise of free will. Rand states that, “without property rights, there is no way to solve or to avoid a hopeless chaos of clashing views, interests, demands, desires, and whims.”
Not everyone, however, is fully receptive to Rand’s ideas on morality. While she does have a large following, there are numerous critics of her somewhat rigid interpretation of social values. One of the main points of criticism is her influence as a moral and political philosopher. For example, it has been claimed that the ideas expressed by Rand throughout her works are not important in the realm of philosophy and did not constitute and groundbreaking ideas. Furthermore, Rand’s view on ethics is also criticized, in particular, her defense of the morality of selfishness. The view on politics that Rand expressed in Objectivist theory is also criticized by some of ignoring the central role that government often plays in society.
In conclusion, Ayn Rand is one of the most influential political theorists of the 20th Century. Rand is known for developing the philosophy of Objectivism, which promotes the ideals of rational egoism, individual liberty, reason and knowledge, and secular values. Rand has expressed the idea of Objectivism through numerous writings, in fiction and non-fiction alike. Moreover, Rand’s views on sociopolitical issues were influenced by past experiences growing up in Soviet Russia and her early adult years in Depression-era America. Rand’s political philosophy still remains significant to this very day and her works continue to retain mainstream popularity.
Sources:
Ayn Rand , “Introducing Objectivism,” The Objectivist Newsletter Vol. 1 No. 8, August 1962, p. 35
Ayn Rand “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” in Philosophy, Who Needs It? p. 62.
Bell-Villad, Gene H. “Who Was Ayn Rand?” Salmagundi 141/142 (n.d.): 227-42.
Miller, Fred. “Aristotle’s Political Theory.” Stanford University. 1998. Accessed February 24, 2016.
Biddle, Craig. “Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand’s Morality of Egoism.” The Objective Standard 7, no. 2 (Summer 2012).
