Critical assessment of John Stuart Mill’s account of the relationship between liberty and harm

The purpose of this essay is to assess, critically, the relationship between liberty and harm. It will then look at the subsequent similarity with Maslow’s theory of self-actualisation. John Stuart Mill was a 19^th century British intellectual and the prodigal son of James Mill. Through his association and tutelage with Jeremy Bentham, at the bequest of his father, his variety of works ranging from logic, moral and political philosophy and economics, he came to dominate British liberal and intellectual thought and debate during the 19^th century (Heydt, 2006).

One of the main concerns for Mill was how to live a free and just life. In On Liberty he explores “…the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (Mill, 1991, p. 1). He asserts that human beings, with rational capacity, should have freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of association; and be free to act to realise them. “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,” he asserts, exemplifying his idea of freedom (Mill, 1991). Mill makes this distinction between rational-beings by stating that it applies “…only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties…” (Mill, 1991, p. 17). The freedom of the individual is only attainable when they’re free from the overly paternalistic-morality of the state – or society – and its laws (Simmonds, 1998). One is only free to act if they’ve sufficient knowledge to know that they have a choice and aren’t arbitrarily choosing an action by rolling a metaphorical dice in their head (Brecher, 2011). A choice is comprised of two components, a decision (based upon knowledge) and an action (dependent on freedom) (Brecher, 2011) and if one is to be free, they need to have mastery of their faculties and have the necessary liberty to execute them. Central to this is the requirement of free speech and free thought to explore the possible realms of individual self-interest and the self-actualisation. Unless you have free speech, thought and association, the transference of ideas and knowledge required to act freely doesn’t exist (Brecher, 2011). So in that sense, his idea of liberty is based heavily around the notion of social and civil liberty. Arguably, this creates a demarcation between the public and private aspects of a person’s life (Held, 2006, p. 81) and that at least some institutions of the state and more specifically those of democracy are compatible with Mills account of liberty (Held, 2006, pp. 79-84).

So what does Mill then propose about what is to be done when faced with conflicting interests, such as when two or more individuals act in a way that limits their liberty – or freedom to act? Do we allow individuals to limit other people’s liberties? Mill argued, “[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, isn’t a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.” (Mill, 1991, pp. 51-52). In this Mill introduces what is commonly referred to as the Harm Principle. As discussed earlier Mill was quick to separate public and private actions and his Harm Principle makes a suggestion as to how the relationship between liberty and harm should function. However, this is not as simple as it might look at first glance. How do you assess the effect of an action? Is there any distinction between public-actions and private-actions? One of the earliest reviews and critiques of Mill performed was by Justice Fitzjames Stephens, who argued that there couldn’t be a distinction between actions that cause harm and actions that don’t (Stephen, 1874). This is because it’s extremely hard to distinguish what constitutes harm. It’s noteworthy that Mill is not primarily concerned with harm to the actor – he who performs the act. For example, should an individual be allowed to set fire to himself, so long as he causes no physical harm to other individuals and their property? For Mill as long as the last two stipulations are maintained at all times, then it doesn’t violate the harm principle. Surely, individuals shouldn’t be allowed to act in such ways and by allowing to do so, it harms others by creating an atmosphere of self-harm. Another common example is that of pornography and censorship. Should the depiction of two consenting adults, designed to cause erotic arousal be censored or banned? Mill would argue that it shouldn’t, even if the pornography depicted, as Caroline West puts it “…Simulated abuse of children (for example, consenting adult actors dressed up as schoolgirls)…” (West, 2004) unless there is a sufficient corpus of evidence that it causes harm such as “…those who consume it to abuse children.” (West, 2004). Stephen seems to reject Mills rampant self-interest by stating that “It’s surely a simple matter of fact that every human creature is deeply interested not only in the conduct, but in the thoughts, feelings, and opinions of millions of persons who stand in no other assignable relation to him than that of being his fellow-creatures.” (Stephen, 1874, p. 71). In the above arguments, it’s apparent that the apparatus applied to the individual to limit harm to others, would be in the form of democratic institutions and legislation. Another theme that runs through this assessment is that of the very nature of man’s desires, his self-interest. Is humankind really the despotic, evil-minded and manipulative creature he is often speculated to be, when given the freedom to fulfil his desires? Next, the essay will explore Maslow’s theory of Self-actualisation and the Hierarchy of Needs to try to understand how Mill could remove the ambiguity in the application and scope of the harm principle in a democracy and still sustain individual interests.

Self-actualisation as Maslow describes as “…the desire for self-fulfilment, namely the tendency for him [the individual] to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming” (Maslow, A Theory of Human Motivation, 1943). This is strikingly similar to Mill’s notion of the liberal-individual. Maslow was keen to depart from the ‘negative’ understanding of human nature and said “…the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy” (Maslow, Motivation and Personality, 1954, p. 236). Whilst his language is definitely archaic it suggests that focusing on negative issues will only yield knowledge steeped in negativity. He saw man and his nature as a series of fulfilments he described as Hierarchy of Needs (see Figure 1).

Figure 1, (Mehta, 2010)

As represented in the above diagram, Maslow sees the need to fulfil deficits in the most basic needs as being fundamental to progressing onto the next level of needs. This is very similar to themes in Mills works relating to enlightenment ideals of progress and science (Heydt, 2006). The four most basic needs have to be met to self-actualise and realise your potential as an individual. Expressing yourself, as an individual, requires the cooperation of other people, which in turn would require you to help others in satisfying their needs and begin self-actualising themselves. Only when other members of society are able to meet these higher needs. In this way, it may be more preferential to help others self-actualise, rather than create institutions whose sole-purpose is to limit and punish those who inhibit individual liberty.

Mill succeeds in fostering intense debate into the notion of the liberal individual in democracy. On Liberty is a short and accessible essay that challenges the relationship between state and individual. It is sometimes vague and often contradictory about how the relationship between liberty and harm should function but this is mainly due to the fundamental philosophical question of what ‘harm’ should mean. Mill’s liberty is one with rampant individualism that is not compatible with modern societies need for collectivism (to satisfy basic needs). By removing the need for a predetermined form of government, Maslow’s theory of self-actualisation has many of the appeals of liberal individualism but is compatible with other forms of government, such as socialism. The harm principle is, in theory, compatible with Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs and by supporting other individuals collectively in self-actualising, it might not be necessary to use the harm principle in protecting liberal individualism.

 Bibliography

Brecher, B. (2011, March 11). Liberalism in Thought: John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Harm. Democracy: From Athens to Baghdad. Brighton, East Sussex: University of Brighton.

Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heydt, C. (2006, October 24). John Stuart Mill. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/milljs/

Knowles, D. R. (1978). A Reformulation of the Harm Principle. Political Theory, Vol. 6, No. 2, 233-246. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (3), 370-396.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper. Mehta, D. (2010, January 12). Twitter & Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs … nay … Hierarchy of #Tweets. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Conversations with Dina: http://dinamehta.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/800px-maslows_hierarchy_of_needssvg.png

Mill, J. S. (1991). On liberty and other essays. (J. Gray, Ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ripstein, A. (2006). Beyond the Harm Principle. Philosophy & Public Affairs, Volume 34, Issue 3, 215-245.

Sandel, M. (Producer), & Sandel, M. (Writer). (2011). Justice: 3 – How to measure pleasure [Motion Picture]. Simmonds, N. E. (1998). Law and Morality. (E. Craig, Ed.) Retrieved March 15, 2011, from Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/T061SECT

Stephen, F. (1874). Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (Liberty Fund ed.). (S. D. Warner, Ed.) Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Van Mill, D. (2008, April 17). Freedom of Speech. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

West, C. (2004). Pornography and Censorship. Retrieved March 16, 2011, from Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2005/entries/pornography-censorship/

Tutor Feedback and Grade

“This essay’s exceptiontally good and goes far beyond what I would expect in the first year. Your language is eloquent and precise and your analysis is extensive, original and engaging. The biblography is also impressive and seems to support what is evident in your work – namely that you’ve really thought a lot about these issues and are well informed. Really work Dan – Well Done” – Stephanie West, 2011

75% – 1st Class

Critical Analysis of the Browne Report

 

Lord Browne - Pirate of the ABC's

This essay will critically analyse the Brown Report or the Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance as it is also known. The Brown Report’s was intended to be an independent review of the future of Higher Educational Institutions (‘HEI’s) in England (Browne, et al. 2010). The then Labour Party commissioned the report in 2009, which were still in government, and the focus was to assess how well the current funding system for universities was operating. It also sought to make recommendations on how to improve participation in HEIs and alter the funding system to accommodate this increase of participation. (Browne, et al. 2010).

 

The major feature of the report is the allowance of HEI’s to removal of any form of hard-cap on the prices and the report states that “We do not in our proposal include a cap on what institutions can charge for the costs of learning” (Browne, et al. 2010). Instead, the report proposes creating a levy system in which the more an institution charges the student in fees; the more the government levies the institution. It does have one cap however, which is more of a threshold on the levy, which stands at £6,000. This is amount is suggested to be “…less than the charge that institutions need to make to replace the HEFCE funding…” (Browne, et al. 2010). Only the subjects that they describe as “priority” will receive funding from the HEFCE (Morgan 2010). The argument for this proposal is that whilst HEIs account for 6% of private sector growth, having a degree is directly beneficial to the student financially, who can potentially earn more than a non-HEI educated person. The report asserts that the student would earn £100,000 more than, in today’s valuation, on average over the average lifespan, someone with A Levels who did not go to university (Browne, et al. 2010). This represents a huge change in the way universities can operate; allowing them to sell degrees, as products that will eventually compete into a market-based system were the price of the degree reflects the amount of potential money they can earn. If the Browne Reports proposals are accepted, universities such as London School of Economics and Oxford could theoretically charge similar fees to the privately funded universities of the Ivy League in the states. A higher tuition fee means that instead of reducing the much-touted ‘deficit’, government borrowing will increase as the cost of providing the loans increases. So on the one hand you have cuts to spending that are meant to reduce the national debt but on the other hand, you have a scheme of lending that increases the national debt. It can be could argued that this does not really seem to make sense financially because of the increase in national debt.

Essentially, it represents a hidden ideological shift in the very notion of what education and knowledge means. Education and knowledge will almost entirely become monetised in order for the government to make a potential profit on providing loans by proxy to Universities and HEI’s through their students. It is not just an economic and political move but an entire shift in the government’s involvement in the philosophy of education. Education is no longer about the pursuit of knowledge and discovery; it becomes a facilitator of capitalism and ultimately results in deepening the social divides through economic principles. Whilst the report does make some provisions for students from low incomes, in the form of rebates and an increased threshold of repayment, which it recommends be set at £21,000 to reflect the living costs of students after graduation, it discourages people to participate in academic pursuits that might not necessarily yield much financial gain (Browne, et al. 2010). Eerily the word like “choices” and “competitive” litter the report, further emphasising the capitalist nature of this change to social funding.  Subjects like the humanities and arts often do not have very clear job progression after graduation because those degrees often yield another forms of value, something that capitalism cannot always put a price on. Arguably studying subjects like the humanities and arts produces cultural and social value in the form of critically engaged and expressive members of society, which far outweighs the financial cost of funding degrees.

The report is clear in trying to promote widening participation in HEI’s but it seems only if it is of direct financial gain to the individual and ultimately the government in the form of levies on the increased fees and the increase of interest on maintenance loans . Whilst the report brings funding for part-time students in line with full-time students, in the form of paying for their fees upfront and providing the same non-means tested loan to cover living costs (Browne, et al. 2010). This indicates an amount of universality, which a New Statesman blogger describes as being “…one of the hallmarks of the British welfare state…” (Partridge 2010), but it does not make up for the lack of universality that is lost by having a fixed price for degrees. The recommendations do not necessarily mean that everyone has the same universal access to education with non-means tested and essentially commercial loans. In the previous system, loans to cover living costs were subsidised with low interest rates but in the recommended system be replaced with near commercial rates of interest.

In conclusion, subjecting the HEIs and more importantly the university funding scheme to “market forces” that is driven by consumer demand and market provision will end up being privatised, branded and subject to the standard practices of commercialisation. This means that degrees that are not economically viable to the university and student, will most likely result in either the lowering of the quality of the degree or the scrapping of that degree entirely. Diversity in degree subjects could become affected by shifting the emphasis of student choice into financial gain rather than for the value of education. Viewing education as a product and putting the emphasis on individual gain is a grave mistake because it goes against the ideal of education having intrinsic value and consigning it to an instrumental tool for capitalist gain.

Bibliography

Browne, John, et al. “An Independant Review of Higher Education & Student Finance in England.” Department for Business Innovation & Skills. October 2010, 2010. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf (accessed December 28, 2010).

Morgan, John. Take off the cap so students and market system can shape UK higher education, Browne recommends. October 12, 2010. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=413806 (accessed November 28, 2010).

Partridge, Matthew. The crafty political logic of the coalition’s war on universality. October 29, 2010. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/services-middle-progressive (accessed December 29, 2010).

Why did A.J.P. Taylor’s analysis of the origins of the Second World War cause such controversy among historians?

In this essay, it will briefly explore why A.J.P. Taylor’s critical assessment of the origins of the Second World War caused such controversy amongst historians. Before discussing why his theory on the origins of the Second World War might be controversial, it is worth briefly examining his background and how that might have contributed towards the controversy that surrounded him.

Taylor was born 25 March 1906 and died on 7 September 1990, so he had first-hand experience and knowledge of the events that built up towards the Second World War. He grew up in a privileged household that held left-wing views. His family had a strong connections and history with communists and socialists, which could have caused opinion within some sections of society to be rather negative. During his time as a student, he became increasingly involved with the Communist Party of Great Britain. In his autobiography, he recalls mobilising the school cabinet into a platform to end the abhorrent practice of corporal punishment in schools. Eventually, in a display of solidarity, he travelled to Russia and saw such figures as Lenin and listened to Zinoviev speak. He also met Kamenev and Litvinov, key Bolshevik revolutionaries. Because of the revolutionary nature of the individuals, he associated with, his personal character and works receive critique with a bias. Philosophy teaches us that attacks on the character are a weak or invalid form of argument but politics seems to contradict that. The political significance of his background may arguably affect the reception any of his theories. Although he distanced himself from Communism over the General Strikes of 1926, in which he felt the Communist Party did not play a very active role, there is no doubt he was influenced by the ideas of communism.

So what did Taylor say about the origins of the second world war? In his book, Origins of the Second World War he argued that Hitler was incapable of formulating such a vast plan on his own. He suggested that Hitler was just an opportunist hoping that other European powers that had diplomatic treaties would fulfil effectively. Poland’s location would not have lent well to combined military effort by sea or land. What about acts of genocide in             committed in Germany under the Nazi regime? Was that Hitler being opportunistic and not entirely and not responsible for acts of genocide? Taylor did agree that what he did was far worse than what the average political leader would have done given the opportunity. Further to this, he suggested that Hitler was no different from Chamberlain or any of the allied leaders in the lengths they would go to achieve their goals except in his desire for anti-Semitism. If Hitler was not to be blamed for the events of the Second World War, then who was? Was it the policies and treaties of the European powers? These kinds of questions set the tinder for a blaze of controversy. Although Chamberlain was not in government for long during the Second World War, Taylor suggested that Chamberlains policies of appeasement where exactly the right materials that a power hungry anti-Semite would need to build his war machine. Such a notion is supremely controversial because it challenges both the western propaganda and the foreign policies that Taylor suggests caused the war.

Whilst what Taylor was undoubtedly very controversial for speaking out against established views, he was well respected. He was fortunate to be born in a very exciting time for historians. History was leaping out of the pages and into people’s living rooms through the medium of television, a movement Taylor was a part. He delivered excellent radio and television lectures that practically made him a household name. Academics admired him for his time-perfect lectures without notes and his use of clever paradoxes. Arguably, tailor felt a responsibility to truth and a strong critical tradition of questioning the status quo. All of these things make the traditional and conservative historian feel somewhat threatened by Taylor’s bold arguments. Historians of the time had been more concerned with the continuation of war propaganda and the scapegoating of Hitler. After all, Hitler’s suicide forced the allied powers into a situation where they could only second-guess the true reasons and extent of Hitler’s evilness. It would be asserted that Taylor’s arguments no longer command the same amount of controversy, especially amongst contemporary historians.

In conclusion, Talyor is likely to be controversial for not just his theories on Hitler but rather his challenging of the state of affairs. His background no doubt brought his arguments into disrepute and accentuated the controversy that surrounded him.

Bibliography

A.J.P. Taylor. (1983). A Personal History

A. J. P. Taylor. (1964). The Origins of the Second World War.

Anon. (date unknown). A. J. P. Taylor. Wikipedia [ONLINE] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._P._Taylor [Accessed 07/12/2010]

S. E. Konkin III. The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 509-510

 

Just what, if anything, is wrong with Harris’s proposal in ‘The survival lottery’?

This essay will briefly look at the issues of utility or the moral value of human life, in the context of John Harris’s utilitarian thought experiment. Utilitarianism – or the principle of utility – is a moral philosophy that asserts that the morally justifiable act or rule is one that produces the ‘greatest good for the greatest number of people’[1].

In Harris’ thought experiment, he explored the morality of killing human beings in order to produce more utility for society. His ‘survival lottery’, founded upon extending or saving lives through forced organ transplants, might be morally viable or permissible if it saves the lives of others. He proposed selecting people randomly by using a lottery system to select candidates so as be as fair as possible in the selection process[2]. In his example he suggests that person X is sacrificed to benefit persons Y and Z.

Arguably, the purpose of his dialectical thought experiment is to highlight the disparity between killing someone and letting him or her die. The context of state-sponsored, medically endorsed killing is an accessible example of how we might be able to break one of the cornerstone morals that is shared across the globe, through nearly all societies – thou shalt not kill. At first glance, you might be lead to believe that this is a serious proposal that is just waiting moral debate or ratification but it holds more depth and a whole lot of moral grey areas.

One of the first issues that are posed by his experiment is that there is little to no distinction between killing someone, as in homicide or letting someone die to other causes. As unsettling as that proposition may be, we already live in a society that lets people die and even kills people. Everyday third-world children die due to lack of clean water whilst we drink or consume the products that effectively stole the lifeline of many. We let these people die because we do not act and as such, the entities that cause such death do so under the banner that they are providing utility to the western nations in which we live. Both Harris example of the extremes of utilitarianism and the above example of what can be viewed as ‘corporate utilitarianism’, highlight the dark side of utilitarianism. Is it okay to kill people, either through in-action or through action, if it produces more utility? A hard-line utilitarian, whose assessment of the moral equation, leads him to say that more utility is produced by death, would most likely answer yes. If he did not, then it would mean that he is not a true utilitarian and suggest that utilitarianism is a moral paradox. You produce moral worth by being immoral or that you are immoral by producing moral worth.

Secondly, it suggests that humans only have instrumental worth or that a human life on its own has no value. It places human life as a means to an end, only existing to give value to something conceptual, such as utopia or heaven. It is again paradoxical to give human life, as a whole, value by giving a singular human life none.

However, it could be asserted that Harris views all human life as having equal value and would produce a better result on balance. Humans could either have equal intrinsic or instrumental value, which would allow for equality in the experiment. This leads onto the third problem. If humans are to have such value, who is to say that everyone has equal value? Would both the charity worker and the convicted serial killer both be eligible for this life enhancing system? In the current moral climate, most people would find it unacceptable to potentially take an innocent life to extend or cure a convicted sociopath. It would be an unfortunate after effect of having a Harris lottery because otherwise it would not allow for equality if the selection of candidates and the distribution of organs was decided by a ‘third party’[3].

So in conclusion, there is nothing wrong per-say with Harris’ thought experiment if you don’t take it at face value. Scratch a little beneath the surface and you reveal the dark chasm of utilitarianism, with its extreme interpretations of the value of life, death and utility.

---

[1] Julia Driver (2009), ‘The History of Utilitarianism’. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [ONLINE] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/ [Accessed 8 November 2010]

[2] J. Harris (1975), ‘The Survival Lottery’, Philosophy, pp 81-87

[3] J. Harris (1975), ‘The Survival Lottery’, Philosophy, p85

Bibliography

Bentham, Jeremy. 1907. ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’., Oxford: Clarendon Press

Fieser, James. 2009. ‘Ethics’. The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/ [Accessed 23 May 10].

Singer, Peter. 1985. ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’ . 15th ed. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Singer, P. 1993. ‘Practical Ethics’ 2^nd Ed Cambridge University Press

Brighton University Stop The Cuts – How to follow us, help and contribute

Hello as some of you might be aware I am currently involved in the occupation of the University of Brighton. We have received largely favourable press coverage for our local demonstration. Below is a reposting of our demands when we occupied the building. I would like to stress that this is a peaceful, collective and lawful form of protest that does not disrupt the education of our fellow students.

“Fifty students have occupied the University of Brighton building Pavilion Parade.  After a frantic evening thrashing out ideas, the following demands have been decided on.

Demands of the University:

• Vice Chancellor to release a public statement both supporting student protests, and condemning the attacks on education.
• No victimisation or disciplinary action against anyone involved in anti-cuts protests and/or occupation.
• A statement from the Vice Chancellor detailing a full disclosure of dealings with Kaplan.
• Make all university finances transparent; make any planned cuts public.

National Demands:

• No to all proposed cuts, and the abolition of tuition fees.
• LibDems to be held accountable, via right to recall, for pledges made prior to the election.
• NUS to fully support all students in their action against cuts and rising fees, also we demand the resignation of Aaron Porter as NUS president.

Where we stand:

• We stand with the protesters and anyone that was victimised as a result of the protests on the 10th and 24th of November.
• We condemn the police and university management who used excessive force and action against peaceful students in their own university building.
• We stand in solidarity with all people taking action against austerity measures.
• We encourage lecturers to disscuss the cuts with students and staff, without fear of reprimand. They are also invited to come and speak at the occupation”

How to follow/contact us

 

Brighton University Stop The Cuts

Facebook:

Brighton University Stop The Cuts

 

Blog: brightonresistance.wordpress.com

Twitter: brightonnocuts

E-Mail: brightonagainstcuts@gmail.com

How you can help

We need people to show their support for us in any way you can. We are looking for people from all walks of life, political alignment and background to get involved with us. During the day there are lectures and discussion on some of the underlying issues surrounding the philosophy of these cuts and what they mean. There are also talks given about the historical context of what we are doing and how to relate our struggle to the struggles of others in the country. We want people to have an informed opinion about the cuts that’s free from shackles of the mainstream media. Below I will list some things that we are in constant need for:

• Food
• Petition Signatures
• Wider participation
• Journalism and news coverage
• Financial contributions towards material costs
• Union support

Below I will list some ideas of other things you could do to help us

• Talk to people as many people as possible to mention what is going on. Some people who might be unaware might be sympathetic
• Volunteer to flyer
• Repost links
• Tweet about us

 

 

Virtual Learning Environments

Virtual Learning Environments or VLE’s as they are often abbreviated are software systems that are enable both learning and teachers to be more productive. They usually operate over the internet but some packages have support for offline modes through downloadable packages from the main suite. (Wikipedia, 2010c)

The main aims of VLE’s are to enable teachers to deliver content to students and provide a virtual school so to speak. Professor Stephen Heppel wrote “Learning is breaking out of the narrow boxes that it was trapped in during the 20th century; teachers’ professionalism, reflection and ingenuity are leading learning to places that genuinely excite this new generation of connected young school students – and their teachers too. VLEs are helping to make sure that their learning is not confined to a particular building, or restricted to any single location or moment.” (Heppell, 2007) This quote succinctly captures the essence of VLE’s and there aims. It’s all about empowering both the student and the teacher giving them the flexibility to teach and learning in dynamic ways. It enables traditional teaching methods such as face-to-face to content delivery to be enhanced by providing a system of tools for learning and teaching outside of the classroom. These software packages where initially aimed at enabling long distance learning but it wasn’t long until its potential was realised in more traditional academic situations.

One of the key features of VLE is enabling students to access class materials and upload assignments directly to the website for online assessment. In some cases automatic assessment can occur when multiple choice assignments are given. Students, teachers and even parents or guardians can also access student grades helping to provide a more transparent and gradual assessment of a student’s achievements. Outside of enhancing traditional teaching methods students can participate in ‘wikis’ or scaled down, more private version of the technology behind the immensely popular Wikipedia online encyclopaedia. Students can contribute links, share information and collaborate with each other from just a browser. Integral to the concept of VLEs is the need for the systems to be user friendly, intuitive and ultimately provide the user with a satisfying experience.

For all the great advantages and potential that VLE’s have they are somewhat marred and hampered by a variety of issues. Ofsted published a report in 2009 looking at 41 VLE service providers ranging from primary school through to colleges and even in work based learning schemes but found only 35 had systems that could be effectively be evaluated (Ofsted, 2009). The report shed light on the impracticalities of deploying such systems. One of the major concerns was that teachers would have to spend a large amount of time, potentially increasing staffing costs, in adapting current content for the systems. Some of the systems where so complex and feature rich, which in some circumstances caused teachers to have great difficulty in using the systems. This in turn lead to inconsistency over a variety of subjects, with some subjects receiving exceptional VLE support and others becoming mere dumping ground for files. Because of the inconsistency across subjects VLE use uptake amongst students was sporadic and equally inconsistent. In work-based learning environments some organisations perceived that the financial costs of devolving VLE’s for small providers could potentially outweigh the benefits. (Ofstead, 2009)

Although many VLEs in the UK are suffering from teething problem there is great enthusiasm amongst its users. It has so many clear advantages over traditional teaching methods in the fact that it is dynamic enriches the learning experience for both parties. Maybe it is not the program that it holding itself back but society itself? Society professes to be open to change but when it comes to it, sometimes it can drag its heels like a screaming toddler. If VLEs are to become accepted and part of mainstream education, teachers will need to be more proficient in delivering multimedia content than and as strange as it may seem, they should consider their methods of learning. Ultimately VLEs could teach the teachers how to teach and use its systems essentially mirroring the process the learning process the students take part in. Sadly it seems that some teachers think they are there to teach and not to learn themselves. VLEs still have a long way to go but as the next generation of teachers and learners becoming comfortable with the idea of reciprocal learning experiences the technology has the potential to revolutionise education.

 

A Critical Assessment of Marxist Ideas That Society Is Based on Exploitation and Unequal Class Divisions

This essay will critically assess Karl Marx’s ideas that society is based on exploitation and unequal class divisions.  It will look at the strengths and weaknesses of key Marxist ideas such as Base-Superstructure, class struggles and modes of production in relation to the societies present at the time

 

Karl Marx

Karl Marx was an eminent economic and political philosopher born in 1818 in the Prussian town of Trier to a reasonably wealthy, middle-class family. Both of his parents where descended from a long line of Jewish Rabbis, although he himself was baptised as a protestant Christian. His father had a strong passion for enlightenment thinkers of the time, such as the French enlightenment philosopher Voltaire. Marx started his career by studying at the Faculty of Law at the University of Bonn. After his studies and his only marriage his father instructed him to study at the more prominent University of Berlin. (Kreis, 2008)

 

Marx was massively influenced by the enlightenment thinkers of the time, especially that of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He joined the Young Hegelian movement and with some collaborators, produced a critique of Christianity that infuriated the Prussian autocracy.

After his departure from the University of Berlin, Marx moved to Paris and quickly began establishing contacts with French Socialists and German expatriate workers. During his time in Paris he met a man by the name of Friedrich Engels. This was the beginning of a partnership that would last until the end of Marx’s life in 1883. Friedrich Engels was a Prussian social scientist, philosopher and ultimately the co-creator of the Communist Manifesto. Together they theorised about the working class and Engels stimulated Marx’s economic ideas. In 1845 Marx and Engels would be expelled from Paris after it was made public that a publication they were affiliated with, openly expressed approval for the assassination of the Prussian monarch, Frederick William IV (Wikipedia, date unknown).

Marx and Engels then moved to Brussels, where Marx developed his theories on historic materialism, which would late be published posthumously in 1932 as “The German Ideology” (Marxsist.org, date unknown). He looked at the previous societies that have been recorded by man and he argued that “the nature of individuals depends on the material conditions determining their production” (Kreis, 2008).

He examined the relationship of primitive communism found in ancient hunter gather societies, in this proto communist way everyone held the means of production and everyone shared in its surplus. These hunter-gather societies then changed into Barbarianism with chieftains ruling over settlements and controlling the means of production. After this as agriculture developed, those without the means to produce where forced into working on for their masters, this is called a Slave Society. Feudalism then followed, with areas of land being separated amongst lords and vassals, who controlled the entire working class of citizen. Capitalism then followed with the industrial revolution and the means of production fell into the hands of private enterprises and royal businesses. This led him to the understanding that society is based on who owns the mode of production and the social classes and divisions within society are historical created based on who has control of them.

Marx then argued that industrial capitalism would eventually collapse and form Socialism/Communism. In a communist or socialist society all property is held by the state. This meant that people would not have to pay to use state property such as road tolls or having the need to rent plots of land to farm. Everyone would have an equal stake in society, the methods of production “owned” by the working class.

The pair then settled in London, joining and forming The Communist League. The Communist League was an organisation of German emigrant works whose main ideal was to set up a Christian utopia based on equality and justice (Wikipedia). There headquarters where based in London but there founded members had come from present day German and Brussels. During the formation of the Communist League, Marx and Engels were commissioned to produce a manifesto compiling the thoughts and ideas of the party. This was to be aptly titled The Communist Manifesto.

 

The Communist Manifesto - 1848

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels likened the communist ideology to a ghost, or spectre, which is haunting the old powers of Europe and suggested that they would seek to exorcise them. They stated that historically society at that time was based on historic class struggles and that “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another” (Marxist.org). They asserted that bourgeoisie or the ruling class and the proletariat or the wage earning working class of the current capitalist society would ultimately have a class struggle resulting in the proletariat becoming the bourgeoisie. This would last until a communist state was formed with class equality.

 

In the second section the Communist League’s intentions are stated and clarified. Notably they state that

“The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.”(Marxist.org)

Boldly they state the exploitation of the proletariat will transcend border and nationality united in their common suffering and lifestyles. Here they predict that the rising proletarian population will accelerate the adoption of communism.

To achieve their communist utopia the following 10 criteria would have to be met.

“1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.” (Marxist.org)

The third chapter describes the historic changes that they believe have led to the current social class divisions. In the fourth chapter a brief evaluation entitled “Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties” in which they look at the common struggles of nationalities with communist aspirations.

Marxism, socialism, communism and the other subsets of those share one key idea, Base Superstructure. Base and Superstructure describes in an analogy the relationship of the conditions in which things are produced and the social structures based upon them. The base regards the methods of production, the conditions of the worker and property relations. Superstructure constitutes the outer-shell of society such as economics, arts, police, political institutions, etc. Largely it is the base which dominates but the superstructure has an effect on the conditions of the base.

Marxism has a great strength in that is very idealistic and seeks to address the injustices of the world. It has great appeal in its equality but it falls short of addressing key issues such as obedience and conformity. The idea that ever one will agree to share equally in society is obscured by the fact that humans are largely greedy self serving animals.

Society is clearly exploited by the ruling class but in recent times it seems people have with ever knowingly agreeing to it, allowed themselves to be mercilessly exploited by the structures which they believe support them. To a large extent some compromises have been made to include some key socialist ideas into capitalism, such as worker unions and free national education. This has not however led to equality amongst the social divisions but rather put a carrot on a stick for the working class.

We are all equal in some respects but in others we are desperately divided. To make everything as equal as possible it would either require more work than is practicable or heavy compromises in other areas. Without complete homogenisation of the human race this will never practically occur. It has been attempted by many communist regimes and has resulted in genocide, dictatorships and restrictions on civil liberties.

Class divisions and their struggles will continue to dominate human society until our psychology evolves beyond its primitive and often impulsive desires. There is still room for a communist utopia but several issues beyond the reach of Marx and Engels revolutionary ideas. Until man stops exploiting its environment, which was most likely the main thing that accelerated our evolution, we can’t expect it to stop exploiting its own population.

There is a striking similarity between the number of criteria that needs to be met in order to achieve a communist utopia and Ten Commandments of the Jewish and Christian faiths.

Marx, Engels and their peers were brilliant thinkers of the time. They made some extremely plausible theories supporting their communistic and socialistic ideologies. Many people have been inspired there original ideas. It some ways he won because there are Marxist parties and thinkers in society today. You could say he planted a seed in society that is yet to mature.

Bibliography

Kreis, S. (2008), ‘Karl Marx, 1818-1883‘, [Online] Available: <<http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html>&gt; [Accessed 07 Oct 2009]

Wikipedia: Karl Marx# Marx in Paris and Brussels, [Online] Available:   <> [Accessed 07 Oct 2009]

Marxsist.org, ‘The German Ideology’ [Online] Available: <<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/index.htm>&gt; [Accessed 07 Oct 2009]

Marxsist.org, ‘Communist Manifesto’ [Online] Available: <<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm>&gt; [Accessed 13 Oct 2009]

Wikipedia: Communist League, [Online] Available: << http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_League>&gt; [Accessed 13 Oct 2009]