The original intentions of socialism are towards the fair and equitable distribution of a nation’s wealth. The ideals of socialism rose from the social and economic inequalities that free marker and democratic economies foster. Socialism is an ideal, a utopia if you will, but a concept that is difficult to put into effect in the actual world. While on paper, socialism seems very workable, it can very much fall victim to the realities and circumstances of our complex and all too often contradictory world.
Socialism and the concept of social justice and equality succumbed in the hands of tyrants who used Marx’s ideals to impose their own vested interests. Understanding the context with which socialism developed, it is easy to see that its principles and ideals are inherently founded on social justice and human rights, and are therefore very democratic. The conflict lies in the idea that socialism puts limits in potential abuses, and by extension, limits the growth of an individual and his right to self-determination. However, of what does a society stand to gain if all it develops is rampant consumerism and materialism, where there is a great imbalance between the quality of life of the rich and the poor? What does freedom mean in the face of unrelenting poverty? While democracy may provide greater freedoms, the people are chained by their economic capabilities. The sad truth is that in our search for freedom and self-determination, we have forgotten our collective responsibility to the welfare of one another. Capitalism has become a selfish pursuit of personal interests, a reality that socialism aims to temper with a more collective sense of responsibility for the welfare of one another.
An ideal society where everyone is equal in the eyes of the state and where no one will ever be deprived on food, shelter, clothing, education, and heath care. Who does not want such a society? The sad truth is that while socialism seems like a very good idea, its ideals are ruined in the hands of people only too prone to temptations of power and corruption. Socialism cannot stand against the foibles and frailties of the human condition. Once mankind evolves and achieve a level of benevolence and responsibility to another, socialism will no longer be necessary because the abuses that so define capitalism will no longer exist and we will see the ideals of equality realized in this world.
Among the modern proponents of social justice and equality is John Rawls, whose book, A Theory of Justice is a modern take on how to create a more benevolent society within the realities of a contemporary world. As Marx’s opus was written in reaction to a world on the verge of an industrial revolution, Rawls’ book was written in order to counter the concept of Bentham’s and Mill’s Utilitarianism which measures the value of a person or object based on how useful they are. From this, social justice exists when states are able to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For Rawls, happiness for the maximum number of people should not inform a just society. Rather, justice itself should inform all moral and legal decisions of individual, societies and governments. This justice inhabits all aspects of civilization and should be the priority of states and governments: to provide justice to every individual, and not just pursue “happiness” or practical usefulness. Fairness of social equality is the ultimate test of a just society. (Rawls 4) He has tried to apply socialist philosophies within capitalist realities. The idea is that with proper organization and leadership, it is possible for capitalism to become more socialist in terms of providing social justice to all of its citizens.
Welfare and Social Justice
It was very well be said that Rawls ideas find manifestation in the welfare state. The concept of a welfare society is based on the idea that all citizens have the right to a life of dignity and welfare, and that such right is the state’s duty to uphold and protect (Morrison 94). A welfare society endeavors to create a society where all citizens have access to basic needs such as education and health, and where the government acts as a conduit with which these services are thus provided (Galbraith 176). While the intentions of a welfare state are noble and commendable, such does not find easy application in the complexities of the real world. (Rawls 23)
Social and welfare services are based upon the reality that societies are stratified in terms of wealth, power, and prestige. The role of social work is it to transcend and bridge these inequalities and make social and economic justice available to all. Much of the goals of social services and welfare systems focus on reconciling these social classes and exploring solutions to bridge the gap between the quality of life between the rich and the poor, and other disadvantaged groups such as minorities, women, and children. The steady widening of the wealth gap between upper and lower class creates social inequalities and class struggles. In order to equalize this gap, developed countries provide access to the state’s wealth through social services. Through socialized welfare, citizens are given access to various types of social assistance that they need to secure and maintain a certain quality of life. The imbalance or inequalities created by social classes is mainly a function of who has access to better opportunities. This stratification creates an imbalance and where the powers vacillate between the hands of the very few who have the money and the influence and in the hands of the working class, who exert power by virtue of their great numbers.
The ideals of welfare is based upon the recognition that given proper help and access to opportunities, individuals can empower themselves and become more productive citizens, in spite of enduring social inequalities. Social services work among the most marginalized in society in order to help them function better within their respective communities. Welfare and socialized services are firmly anchored upon economic and political realities and cannot isolate itself from such conditions.
Brief History of Welfare
Social welfare began during the Great Depression under the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The country that elected Franklin Roosevelt was a broken nation, with over ten million people unemployed and starving. Faced with the prospect of a hungry and restless nation, FDR realized that such desperate times called for desperate measures. FDR’s “First 100 Days” as US president were spent convening the Congress to a special session to pass sweeping and radical reforms meant to help the economy recover. His “New Deal” was a series of legislative and executive measures meant to channel the country’s meager funds to the sectors that needed them the most. Military spending was slashed significantly, along with pensions of veterans and their widows. FDR also cut the subsidy for scientific research and education, knowing that some sacrifices must be made in order to address the pressing issues of widespread poverty and hunger.
In 1941 the economist William Beveridge was commissioned to make recommendations as to what reforms can be done to hasten the country’s recovery from the war. A year later, after the Allied victory in Europe, Beveridge released his papers on social services and other welfare programmes. The Report to the Parliament on Social Insurance and Allied Services came to be known as the Beveridge Report and became the basis for the United Kingdom’s adoption of a welfare state system. (Devine 34) Among the most important recommendations of this paper was the establishment of a social security programme where citizens would be giving certain amount of their income to a national insurance system. The regular contributions will then be used to as a revolving and self-perpetuating funding system that will provide sickness, retirement, and death benefits to the members and their beneficiaries. (Devine 48)
Beveridge’s ideas came at an opportune time when the world, suffering from the wounds or war, was looking to find genuine reforms that would promote social justice and equitable distribution of wealth. (Devine 12) His vision of a society where everyone contributed to the welfare of one another is indeed a vision worth realizing. The government of the United Kingdom adopted Beveridge’s recommendations and began laying the ground for its enforcement on a nationwide level. Thus, soon after World War II, the United Kingdom became the world’s first modern welfare state.
Inequalities
Much of the inequalities and the need for welfare are a function of social classes. In the welfare state of the United Kingdom and the United States, such classes still exist, but they are not absolute. This means that while all Americans and Britons are born into a particular social class, they are not necessarily bound to it for the rest of their lives. Through a combination of hard work, determination, and some luck, anyone can ascend the social ladder and leave a legacy of a better life for their descendants. Of course much of this depends on the resolve of the individual to create a better life than the one he has been born into. This hierarchical structure of class creates a cycle that perpetuates itself, creating social justice issues like inequality and poverty. In a modern and sophisticated democracy, the people are not as equal and free as it seems. The irony is that very idea of a democracy where everyone is free to pursue their own aspirations creates a society that is highly stratified and asymmetrical. This is what Rawls acknowledges and aspires to work around instead of against.
Social classes are particularly evident in some areas than in others. In education, people from the elite class are able to send their children to private schools, hardly anyone of them go to the public education system. Thereafter, they then go to prestigious schools to pursue a college degree. For the elite, this path is pretty much the same for everyone. Their good education enables them to land high-ranking jobs. The ability to afford quality education is perhaps one of the most striking differences between the upper class and the rest of society. For the middle class, college must be planned for well in advance. It means that while the children are going to school, their parents may have been saving for college if there is something left after the monthly expenses. Basically the middle class and the lower class live on a per-income basis. They cannot make plans beyond their monthly income and expenses. Because college is very expensive, they may resort to student loans or work their way to a college degree. This access to better education is the reason why the affluent are able to create more wealth for themselves.
Abuses of Welfare
Under its original intentions, Rawls and the welfare system also advocated for providing social insurance to the unemployed. But this has since changed because unemployment benefits have proven to create indolence and dependency among the citizens. The success of any social security system is intimately tied to the availability of jobs available to the people. However, if social security provided subsidies to the unemployed and their families, then people will no longer have the impetus to work because they will be provided for by the state. Marxists view the social security and the welfare state as a logical result of the free market economy and the social injustices that it bred. Welfare, as it exists in developed countries was not designed to treat poverty; rather it aims to redistribute income in ways that benefit the every citizen in the country. The government acts as the medium in which this income is redistributed, making sure that everyone receives their fair share. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who believe that a welfare system creates indolence and dependence among its citizens. If people knew that their government would provide for them whether they work or not, then the motivation to work and improve one’s lot in life is lost. Rawls concept of justice and a fair society is lost when people are not empowered. (Rawls 91)
The main thrust of current reforms is to structure welfare within the framework of a free-market driven economy. By changing funding and entitlement policies, the goal is to motivate citizens to contribute to welfare and not just depend on government to provide it. Instead of a universally available system, welfare must be modified, creating gradations in entitlements that would determine how much a person should receive. Now we are seeing that welfare, while noble in its intentions can perpetuate a culture of reliance and must be changed in order to make the shift from state-reliance to self-reliance. Among the most important changes include a gradual shift that will classify those who are able to work and those who cannot. Support for those who cannot work will come in the form of an incapacity benefit. For those who can work, the governments must seek to provide viable employment, with benefits dependent on results. People who can work are given a grace period of two to three years to secure employment; if they don’t, they stand to lose their benefits. To distinguish those who can work from those who cannot, a system of assessment will be instituted making sure that benefits are given to those who truly deserve it.
All over the world there seems to be a trend towards the restructuring of the welfare state as we know it so as to prevent the free-riders from abusing the system and from taking away services to those who truly deserve it. It is too early to say whether the welfare reforms initiated by the Conservatives have been successful or not. These things take time to tell. There is no instant solution to indigence, and the fact remains that poverty continues to be a big problem all around the world. Rawls’ concept of justice will only work if the welfare designed to distribute justice in society also distributes the ability to work for one’s betterment in life. Providing welfare at the cost of creating an indolent society of free riders is not justice at all.
Work Cited
Devine, Fiona. Social Class in America and Britain, 4th ed. Edinburgh University Press. 1997.
Galbraith, John Kenneth. The Affluent Society. Houghton Mifflin Books. 1998.
Morrison, Kenneth. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought, Pine Forge Press. 2006.
Rawls, John. A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. 2005.
Causes And Effects Of The French Revolution
The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a pivotal period in the history of French, European and Western civilization. It was during this period that the absolute monarchy in France has been replaced by republicanism and the country’s Roman Catholic Church was forced to undergo restructuring. There were many causes of for the revolution to occur. This revolution was the result of years of frustration and hatred which had been embedded in the blood of common man of French empire against the 75 year old cruel monarchial government. My goal in this paper is to explain clearly the various causes of the French revolution and its later effects on the society. To achieve this goal I have organizes the paper into 2 sections, one of which has 3 sub sections. In the first section I provide an account of the various causes of the French revolution. In the second section I have discusses the napoleon experience and the legacies of the revolution have. I end my paper with a section that offers some important images regarding the revolution.
WHAT IS FRENCH REVOLUTION?
The motto of French Revolution was a conjunction of three terms namely liberty, fraternity, and equality. “Liberty consists of being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man or woman has no bounds other than those that guarantee other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights.” The law “must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.” On the eve of the Revolution, France had grown to such a state that a revolution was irrefutable. The King and his nobles were resting comfortably on the poor and broken backs of most of the population of France, who at the time were finding a way to rise up together and fight for what they believed. Liberty, Equality and Fraternity were a reflection of the political, social, and economic breakdown, because they were the driving forces behind reforms needed to correct the corrupt Ancient Regime.
Causes of the French Revolution:
Economic causes of the French Revolution:
The causes of the French Revolution, being provoked by this collision of powers, were the financial debt of the government and the long-standing political differences in the government. Over the course of twenty-five years after the Seven Years’ War, the government of France–the Bourgeoisie royalty, could not manage its finances on a sound basis. This was worsened when France aided the American Revolution against Great Britain. The Government had reached great financial debt. The problem lied and continued because of the government’s inability to tap the wealth of the French nation by taxation. There was a great paradox in France being a rich nation with a government in poverty. The deteriorating finances of the government are what triggered the prolonged differences between the Bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. The political differences between the monarchy and the nobles came about after the Seven Years’ war also. The increasing debt of the government escalated the hope for the monarchy to resume an “absolute power” status as it did with Louis XIV. However this could not be accomplished because of the doubt that the public had towards the present kings Louis XV and Louis XVI, and the public could not be swayed to help. The only result of the attempts for absolutism by the monarchy was a series of new and increase taxes on the nobles. The aristocracy immediately reacted to these taxes as declaring them unfair and would not accept them. Louis XV began with a series of financial advisors chancellors which all had the intention of saving the monarchy from financial ruin. They made many attempts at taxation, such as a land tax, but each of these were defeated by the nobles — the Parliaments were even destroyed for a brief time, but were later restored by Louis XVI in attempt to gain public support. The government continued to become poorer and poorer and it seemed the only successful taxation was done towards the peasants, whom had the least money. The monarchy eventually fell and caused great unrest leading to the French Revolution.
Social causes of the French Revolution:-
The vast majority of the French public belonged to the working class whose hard earned money was being used to finance the foreign wars and the court extravagance along with being the treasury with which to repay national debt. Although on the face of it the King had consolidated absolute monarchy which should have put an end to feudalism, the small land owners and the peasant class were still bound to extremely unfair contracts with the feudal lords. This tension and frustration of the working class was the result of the oppressive rule of the monarchist regime. Although the regime had been very successful in defending France from foreign invaders and sorting out internal religious and other disputes it was believed to have been extremely unfair to the general public
Religious Causes of the French Revolution
If we are to be fair in analyzing the root causes of the whole revolution then we will have to admit that the religion of Christianity had a big role to play in it. The religion itself is not to be blamed but it is what the nobles and priests did under the banner of religion that is to be condemned. The Christian rulers of that time were known to be extremely intolerant which resulted in the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in France. Moreover the principles of Christianity were distorted by the priests to gain power over the people and maintain their nobility as a result intellectually straight jacketing the government. This is the only reason why the monarchist regime of France was being considered as being backwards. When the ruling party is unjust and carries with it the banner of a religion then that religion gets the blame for being unjust. Consequently the revolutionary movement was also seen as an anti God movement because of the dealings of the so called men of God. It is actually those people who practiced injustice under the banner of religion and persecuted the people that gave birth to the atheistic spirit of the revolution and the deeds of the so called men of God can be seen as one of the major causes that ultimately led to the revolt.
Effects of the French Revolution
The effects of the French Revolution were widespread, both inside and outside of France, and the Revolution ranks as one of the most important events in the history of Europe. The French Revolution, though it seemed a failure in 1799 and appeared nullified by 1815, had far-reaching results. In France the bourgeois and landowning classes emerged as the dominant power. Feudalism was dead; social order and contractual relations were consolidated by the Code Napoleon. The Revolution unified France and enhanced the power of the national state. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars tore down the ancient structure of Europe, hastened the advent of nationalism, and inaugurated the era of modern, total warfare.
PICTURES OF IMPORTANT EVENTS DURING FRENCH REVOLUTION
STORMING THE BASTILLE
EXECUTION OF LOUIS XVI
SLOGAN OF FRENCH REVOLUTION
WORKS CITED
1) Professor Hanson Pens New Book on French Revolution
2) A Chronicle of the French Revolution. – Book reviews by Jeffrey Hart, 1989.Print.
3) “Historical Census Browser.” University of Virginia Library
4) /www.solarnavigator.net/history/explorers_history/French_Revolution_Louis_XVI_
Carbohydrates Report
The objective of this experiment was to ascertain the reactions of carbohydrates in three tests: Benedict’s test, Barfoed’s test, and Iodine test. Carbohydrates have a vital role in living organisms and primarily contribute to energy production. They are made up of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen with a ratio of 1:2:1. Carbohydrates consist of three main components: monosaccharides, disaccharides, and polysaccharides. Monosaccharides are individual CH2O chains while disaccharides form through dehydration reaction between two units. Despite their differences, both monosaccharides and disaccharides belong to the category of sugars.
Polysaccharides are formed by connecting three or more monosaccharide units. Carbohydrates are produced through the combination of carbon dioxide and water molecules, and they contain two functional groups: hydroxyl groups and carbonyl groups. Within the realm of carbohydrates, a sugar that possesses an aldehyde group is known as a reducing sugar, while one that does not have the aldehyde group is categorized as a non-reducing sugar.
The Benedict’s test is utilized for determining if sugars are reducing or non-reducing. It involves the addition of a solution called Benedict’s reagent, which contains Cu2+ ions, to an alkaline solution with sodium citrate present to maintain dissolved cupric ions. Under these alkaline conditions, ketoses undergo an isomeric transformation into aldoses. This transformation leads to the reduction of the blue Cu2+ ion and formation of cuprous oxide (Cu2O), resulting in the production of a brick red-orange precipitate. Glucose serves as an example of a reducing sugar, while sucrose acts as an example of a non-reducing sugar.
Carbohydrates are composed of monosaccharides, which are the smallest molecules within this category. Monosaccharides are classified based on their carbon count, such as pentose with five carbons and hexose with six carbons. These single sugar units typically contain three to seven carbon atoms. Within these molecules, each carbon atom is linked to a hydroxyl group except for one that forms a carbonyl group through bonding with an oxygen atom. An aldehyde is designated when the carbonyl group exists at the end of the chain, while it is referred to as a ketone if it appears elsewhere in the molecule.
The Barfoed’s test is a useful method for identifying different monosaccharides, such as ribose, deoxyribose, glucose, fructose, and galatose. It relies on the fact that monosaccharides capable of reduction produce Cu2O more quickly than disaccharides. The test solution contains cupric ions in an acidic environment which allows for oxidation of monosaccharides without affecting disaccharides. By carefully controlling the duration of heating, only monosaccharides are reduced while disaccharides remain unreactive. A positive result is indicated by the formation of a red Cu2O precipitate. Ketoses do not undergo isomerization when exposed to this specific reagent.The Barfoed test is used to differentiate between monosaccharides and non-monosaccharides. In contrast, the Iodine test helps distinguish non-polysaccharides. If it is not a non-polysaccharide, then the Iodine test can further determine whether it is a branched or unbranched polysaccharide. The Iodine test is especially effective in identifying starch, which produces a distinct deep blue-black color complex when combined with iodine. Starch consists of ?-amylose and amylopectin, both being helix saccharide polymers. When iodine enters the amylose coil, it forms a large complex polysaccharide, resulting in the formation of the blue-black hue.
Simpler oligosaccharides and monosaccharides do not form this complex with iodine.
Methods/Procedures: For the Benedict test, we had to reheat our water since we had difficulty with the burner and that was an extra procedure. Also, instead of using a cylinder to measure the appropriate solution, we tried to put all the test tubes next to each other and match up the first measured test tube with the appropriate liquid. For the other tests, we followed the same procedures as mentioned on pg 14 of “Experiments in Biology” by Linda R.
All samples, except for Sucrose, Glycogen, Starch, and Distilled water, displayed reducing properties in the Benedict test. Barfoed’s test confirmed that Fructose, Glucose, Galactose, and Equal are monosaccharides. The Iodine test indicated that sweet and low, glycogen, and starch are polysaccharides. Distilled water was classified as a non-reducing sugar and does not fall into either the monosaccharide or polysaccharide category. Glucose was determined to be both a reducing sugar and a monosaccharide.
Fructose, Glucose, and Galactose exhibit similar results as they are both reducing sugars and monosaccharides. However, Maltose, despite being a reducing sugar, does not fall into the categories of monosaccharides or polysaccharides. Surprisingly, Lactose yields identical outcomes to Maltose. In contrast, Sucrose is considered a non-reducing sugar that does not fit into the classifications of polysaccharides or monosaccharides. Glycogen, another non-reducing sugar, acts as a branched polysaccharide. Starch, which also lacks reducing properties, functions as an unbranched polysaccharide. Lastly, the unknown substance known as “Sweet and Low” was determined to be both a reducing sugar and a branched polysaccharide.
The second Unknown B is also a reducing sugar, but it is a monosaccharide. During the Benedict test, the sample started as a blue solution and ended with a red precipitate, indicating that it was reducing. In the Barfoed test, the initial blue solution also had precipitate in some samples, indicating that they were monosaccharides. Starch and sucrose, for example, remained blue and showed a positive test. However, fructose, glucose, and maltose formed a red precipitate, indicating a negative test.
The presence of disaccharide is indicated by the blue solution remaining after heating, while the formation of a brick red precipitate indicates the presence of monosaccharide. In the Iodine test, mostly yellow results indicated non-polysaccharides, but there were some samples that showed a rust or blue-black color, indicating either branched or unbranched polysaccharides. Glycogen and sweet and low were identified as branched polysaccharides based on their rusty color at the end, while starch was identified as an unbranched polysaccharide due to its blue-black color change.
Using the Iodine and Barfoed test, we were able to identify the possible disaccharide samples. When the carbohydrate solution is heated with Benedict’s reagent, a red brick precipitate forms, indicating a reducing sample. This precipitate is formed from CuO in the Benedict’s solution, as monosaccharides in the sample reduce Cu2SO4 to CuO. Any monosaccharide that can undergo this reaction is classified as a reducing sugar.
The Benedict’s test showed that distilled water, which had a blue color, is non-reducing. Additionally, the absence of a precipitate in the Barfoed’s test and the yellow color observed when reacting with iodine indicate that distilled water is also non-monosaccharides and non-polysaccharide. Based on this, we can conclude that distilled water is likely a disaccharide. On the other hand, glucose, which turned red during the Benedict’s test and formed a precipitate in the Barfoed’s test, can be classified as a reducing monosaccharide. Therefore, we can infer that it will test negative for being a polysaccharide in the iodine test.
Both Fructose and Glucose are reducing monosaccharides, and they both exhibit a red color after the Benedict’s test. Galactose shows the exact same reaction as Fructose and Glucose. On the other hand, Maltose differs from the rest as it is a disaccharide – evidenced by negative results in both the Barfoed and Iodine tests. Despite this, it still qualifies as a reducing sugar since it turns orange in the first test. Lactose produces the same results as Maltose, which can possibly be attributed to their similar grouping. In contrast, Sucrose is a non-reducing disaccharide sugar; both the Barfoed and Iodine tests yield negative results and the Benedict test indicates a blue solution.
Distinct from other substances, glycogen was identified as a non-reducing and branched polysaccharide. This distinction was evident through the negative result of the Barfoed’s test and the rusty coloration produced by the Iodine test. Similarly, starch also exhibited non-reducing properties and was a polysaccharide but lacked branching, as indicated by the blue-black solution. Unknown A, referred to as Sweet and Low, demonstrated expected characteristics of being both a reducing sugar and a branched polysaccharide, as observed during testing with a rusty coloration. Therefore, it is confirmed that the outcome of the second test was negative.
Unknown B was both equal and a reducing sugar, but it was a monosaccharide because of the precipitate. To summarize, using all three tests was helpful in confirming results from the other tests and determining which samples were likely disaccharides. For instance, although Glycogen did not show a reducing reaction in the iodine test, it did indicate the presence of sugar. Therefore, I believe that employing multiple tests can validate or invalidate a hypothesis and provide a more precise answer rather than making assumptions.