John Lockes Theory of Property

John Lockes Theory of Property John Locke was born at the time when England was rising against monarchism and the rights of the ordinary people were being revised to envisage the possibilities of sharing power with the ruler. His father was a republican and his views were indifferently influenced by his father to be concerned about the rights of the working people. This was very much reflected in his political theory which cannot be snapped of all ties with this economic and in particular his views regarding property ownership. With his liberal thinking John Locke viewed the ordinary views of rights to property, especially in relation to land as the primary entitlement beyond the prevalent system. His influence in the growth of property laws and later land laws is immense. Property rights and other philosophies in that area have been widely grown and developed much from John Lockes theory in relation to property. This right to property is not to be confused with personal rights as the rights to a property by an in dividual is to be celebrated at rem or against all third parties which John Locke divided into: Common Private Properties John Lockes theory in relation to property can be outlined into: Divinely ordained nature of property and the labourer; Self-ownership emanating from such rights to property by application of labour; Limits on the property and related statues; Need to protect property and the ultimate necessity of governance. The above theory is based on his major political essay, the Second Treatise of Government. This essay will endeavour to critically examine the practicality of his views and whether the theory ultimately delivers any clear message to the development of the property rights. This critical analysis will reflect on the theorists and scholars who wish to remain supportive of Lockes views and also to set a contrast by discussing the views of those scholars who oppose him. Chapter V of his Treatise would be receiving especial attention in this essay as that is where Locke discussed individuals rights  [1]  to property. Section 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31  [2]  will be the pivotal discussions to reflect on the central views of his theory. The essay has based on the criticisms of all theories from the points of modern day scholars, lawyers and judicial decisions by the courts in England and Wales primarily. An endeavour will be made at the end to circumnavigate the relevance of his theory in modern times. Examination of The Theory John Lockes writing were in refute of Robert Filmer. Robert Filmer was a defender of the divine right of Kings and he also said it was wrong to kill yourself because the king owned your life. But Locke argued that God had given the world to man in common. John Locke did not give any emphasis on the natural value of the property rather emphasized on the labour of people to add value to the property. He wrote in his Second Treatise on the issue of property and the value of labour with a economical and philosophical acumen. The main features of Lockes theory on property are as follows: Properties do not have much value as of a divine ordainment rather he is of the view that labour adds the deserving value to the property which is regarded as the principle of first appropriation; The ownership to a property is created by the related labour That Government proceeds property as Government also protects individual ownerships or rights to the property; The Government cannot act arbitrarily to remove individuals from estates and this confirms rights of people to the property and it also establishes that the Government must value individual rights and labours; Properties can be private and common properties; Property has narrow and wider definitions. In the broad sense in includes rights and interests to the property whereas the narrow sense includes the material goods only; Property and rights thereof are natural by application of labour as with labour goods and benefits thereof are created gving entitlement to the producer;  [3]   Human beings have to take from nature to eat and drink and to produce to live as a natural right to preserve themselves and with this they have an obligation to God. Human beings produce and have rights to his produce as a means to preserve themselves as he opines in section 25; God has given this world in common along with the abilities to use this resources therein to live as explained in section 26; there are things which people own in nature including their person and labour; Labour is the means which confirms which is privately owned and commonly owned as discussed in section 28; When a person works his labour enters object and that object becomes property and a right is created in that property in the process. Man should be taking only what he can use or utilise before it spoils as discussed in section 31 creating a limitation to the property rights; Locke says, As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils.  [4]  The right to a property is only clear and exclusive as long as it doesnt jeopardize anyone elses ability to create equivalent types of property for himself and the purpose and justification for this limit is that Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy.  [5]   Someone is entitled to take up to the point where there is some left and he is also of the opinion that there should be enough land for everyone as mentioned in section 33; Where there is not enough land left then non-owners should labour on owned lands to sustain or preserve themselves as discussed in section 34; What property ownership brings happiness and in his capitalist view where everything is owned then that brings greater joy which he discusses in section 37 and he goes to compare unhappiness of unowned lands and people therein in America to happier people in Britain where everything is owned; Labour enhances the quality of a land and makes it more productive than it was ever before as a natural waste land; That private property attainable by money as he mentions in section 46 and as an exception to his spoilage principle above he explains that money helps people produce more than he can use before getting spoilt as he can sell that property as well and money is not perishable; That money is the means to barter and exchange possession of the properties as mentioned in section 50; That money allows more industrious and rational  [6]  to accumulate wealth and the increased accumulation would jeopardise the possibilities of all to own without the spoilage limitation which also concern personal safety for which civic society is needed to have enforcement authority and men would find it advantageous to form the civic government.  [7]   Government ensures safety to life, liberty and estate.  [8]  Therefore, ownership of private properties is one of the main reasons for the existence of a state. But for tension amongst people, Locke is of the view that not only scarcity of property by ownerships but also by dint of increasing population. Critical Thinking From the chronological discussion of the main issues of Lockes theory on property it appears that his provisos to his own theory as for example, the spoilage theory or natural rights theory to leave for all to have are defeated with the money clause as a means to barter. The theory seems to fail in the claim for Gods nature to be preserved for all. He is of the view that in order to preserve such rights to property humans forms civic societies and governments are established to secure rights to such properties in a guaranteeing manner with authority to enforce the rights to the property. His theory seems to be based on selfishness which also seems to be unfair. Lockes theory seems to be puzzling, contradictory and without any precise solution. Lockes theory leaves generations of owners which seem to be unfair as only people who can work are allowed to own property. This defeats the democratic norm. During Lockes time only property owners could vote then the question arises about the justifications of those without owning property willing to be part of the society where they have nothing to protect as personal property. Locke does refer to divinely ordained natural rights to property but his theory goes against the very basic ethos of Christianity. He himself mentioned commonly owned property rights to have come before capitalism, and the selfish ownership of property by a group at the cost of poverty of the other group seems to be against the very basics of Christian beliefs. It does not seem to shake hands with Gods love for all. Locke gives priority to common good over common ownership but common good seems to be elusive in practical world with ownership of properties being controlled by a certain group of the mass. In L ockes theory, a certain number of people are born to be owners and certain others are born not to have at inception which creates a class structural problem which unjustifiably plunges a group of people in endless toiling whereas the other group does not work or hardly works. This seems to be unnatural at the core when nature did not create such inequalities. Scholastic Appraisal Leading scholars have viewed Lockes theory variably. Some are supportive and many are critical of his theory. Those that are critical have mention inconsistencies and contradictions. I will attempt to highlight some of these points Hume confronts Locke and acts opposite about property being natural rights. According to Hume private property is constructed by man, not of nature but of convention. Therefore there is no inherent relationship between a thing a being. Our property is nothing but those goods, whose constant possession is establishd by the laws of society; that is, by the laws of justice.  [9]   This means that if there is nothing natural then property rights are always open to disruption. Ramon comments on the second limit placed by John Locke of accumulating property in relation to money. Lockes assertion that one can accumulate any amount of money is suggested to be incompatible with the first limit as to how much property one can own. The fact natural products differs from money by that natural products will rot and money will not. They are both useful and therefore essentially the same. Ramon also considers three objections to Lockes theory i) it does not explicitly account for the development of an employer-employee relationship ii) his theory fails to provide a means of determining what share of the product which is produced rightly belongs to the employer and what share rightly belongs to employees. iii) theory fails to provide a means of determining what share of the product produced as a result of a division of labour rightly belongs to each person involved in its production. Leo Strauss was of the opinion that Locke in fact believed there is no genuine natural law rather only conventional law.  [10]   Richard Cox in his Locke on War and Peace argues that Lockes Two Treatises are of two levels with opposing views. The first one uses classical orthodox view of God and men and divine relationship and feeling for fellow men whereas the second one views men as Hobbesian creature ruled by passions. But his view seems to be an exaggeration. Mac Person believes that Locke rather had a hidden assumption of possessive individualism and according to Locke society and individual interactions were nothing more than relationship of exchange of properties.  [11]  This seems to make Lockes theory to be harsh and selfish. MacPherson explains that though Locke is of the opinion that through private ownership entire wealth of the community to increase, yet, there was no guarantee that the wealth would be equally distributed. He is also of the opinion that Locke contradicts himself when he assumes that overall life of all will be bettered regardless of who owns the property,  [12]  yet, he expects people who dont own property to work for those who own for the sake of subsistence which in fact helps the owners accumulate wealth through unfair advantage. But the above scholars have also been subjected to serious criticisms as well in their assessment of Lockes theory. For example, Peter Laslett brands MacPhersons criticism as thoroughly unrealistic and occasionally unhistoric.  [13]   One of the supporters of Lockes theory, Martin Seliger in his The Liberal Politics of John Locke believes that most of the apparent confusions raised about Lockes theory of property emanate from misinterpreting Lockes approach about equality. He is of the view that though Locke posited political equality in nature, yet he never opined that there would be equality of possessions.  [14]   Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto  [15]  believed the abolition of private property as he was of the opinion that the bourgeoisie has always oppressed the working class with private ownership by means of labour where the working class would work and the owners would not work and exploit that working class. He was also of the opinion that the state formulated laws to rule for oppression in support of the ruling or owner class. This seems to be radically different from the views of John Locke. But Marxism has been criticised as intolerant and unable to survive. Marxism wishes to abolish something when no one is in charge to abolish it or enforce the abolition. This seems to be an absurdity. Influence John Locke influenced many epoch making future philosophers with his liberalism. It has been widely argued that though the definition of freedom as per Locke and Marx are very different, yet, even Marx was influenced by Lockes liberalism. Hence, it seems that with his theory Locke had been able to bring the relationship between men and property to an intellectual level of research. Conclusion John Lockes theory seems to be still influencing the capitalist societies around the world in seeking justifications by the name of freedom to trade and own. His theory also supported in celebrating rights to property and protection of those rights being recognized as part of human rights. But this view has also turned societies selfish to a certain extent by formulating means and trading systems whereby consumerism has grown by manifold. Karl Marxs view seems to be more scientific in endeavouring to eradicate social class structural problems. But Marxs theory also seem to go against individuals rights to celebrate creativity by celebrating its produces. John Lockes theory has its practical appeal as it is the concept behind which the people work the hardest through competitions. Locke predicted such situations where a group of people with poverty would come to exist but he failed in offering a solution for the problem as well. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that with its faults Lockes theory on property and ownerships thereof is still influencing justifications in conjunction with many other fundamental rights. The global leading capitalist nations seem to be practical proponents of this theory in practice. This concept is also connected with our democratic values which have become inalienable. The scholars are divided in their opinions about Lockes theory but it is also true that beyond the contradictions within the theory, the theory exposes the truth by which the modern world is functioning as whole where we work every day to own property either tangible or intangible.

Paparazzi Policy Speech

Being a celebrity means putting up with people wanting to take pictures with you and signing your autograph all the time. Everyone understands its in the job description to be followed and stared at. But when does a person taking a harmless picture cross the line into harassment? Yes its sad to think that these people don't get any privacy anymore, but what most of us need to worry about is that it could affect us next. Paparazzi have gotten more wild and out of control over the years and if we don't do anything about it now, it will only get worse.SLIDESHOW First we will go over exactly what the problem with the paparazzi is; such as how they are hired for magazines and abuse their power as a means to stalk individuals, not only celebrities but also professional athletes. Then we will find out the causes of the problem, and what effects they have had on the public, such as the laws that are currently in use but not working, and the injuries that innocent bystanders are getting becau se of the crazy paparazzi.Lastly, we will discover a solution for this dangerous situation, in which we will advertise high restrictions and greater punishments to any paparazzo who doesn't obey these laws. Lets begin by discovering exactly why the paps are dangerous. By not making enough restrictions for the paparazzi, we are basically encouraging them to continue to put our safety at risk. Paparazzi are described as freelance photographers who aggressively pursue celebrities to take candid pictures, which they plan to sell to magazines and tabloids for profit.According to an article in Suite 101 on August 7, 2008 written by Rachel Oliva, the term paparazzi actually comes from â€Å"paparazzo† which is italian for buzzing mosquito. You can definitly see the similarities. Paparazzi are infamous for car chases, causing disruptions and many other tactics to try and get rises out of the celebrities they are stalking. They have no consideration or care for the people they put in danger in order for them to get the perfect picture. Sadly, magazines pay huge sums of money for these pictures.Another article from Suite 101 written by Tara Gilbert on October 18, 2007 speculated that a picture of a celeb with no make up on can go for more than $10,000. Therefore, a fine of a mere $500 for running a red light is well worth getting the picture. Not only is this happening in the US, but in every country that celebs visit, you can count on a swarm of paparazzi being there. Especially in India, which is notorious for its terrible drivers, paparazzi are only making the conditions worse. Athletes are also being victimized by the aggressive photographers.Imagine a professional football or baseball player with a huge game the next day, The last thing they need to worry about is being harassed and photographed, which only adds to the stress in their life. In relation to us, we also have to worry about the paparazzi here in Malibu. Since we live in a place where many celebr ities have chosen to live, we get to tell cool stories to our friends about seeing adam sandler in Malibu Yo. However we also have to worry about the photographers hiding behind bushes and jumping out into the street hoping to catch the stars in surprise.And driving down PCH we are very likely to get in an accident with a reckless paparazzo and a frantic celebrity. David Halbfinger from the New York Times described in his article on June 9 2005 Some tactics that Paparazzi use to get the perfect picture, including using several vehicles to â€Å"box in† a celebrity's car, run the stars off the road, or chase them at a high speed. They recklessly put pedestrians, other drivers and even themselves at risk. Celebrities themselves are speaking out about the paparazzi as well.According to the same New York Times article, Reese Witherspoon, Famous for her role on Legally Blonde and Sweet Home Alabama, said a paparazzi actually tried to ram the back of her car, which they had never d one before. The most famous of paparazzi- caused deaths was Princess Diana of Wales, who was killed in a high speed car chase trying to lose several paprazzi. SLIDESHOW An investigation was completed on April 7 2008 and in the Huffington Post, author Robert Barr concluded the fault was given to Princess Di's driver and the pursuing paparazzi for reckless behavior equal to manslaughter.Robert Barr goes on to say that nine of the paparazzi involved were charged with manslaughter, but the charges were thrown out in 2002. Only three photographers were convicted of invasion of privacy and fined exactly one euro in 2006. One euro? Really? If paparazzi can get away with killing one of the most respected women in the world and only have to pay one Euro, then something needs to be changed in our system. Now that we have found out exactly why the paparazzi are dangerous, Lets continue on to the causes of this problem.This problem exists because we as a community have allowed the paparazzi to take advantage of our lax laws. In the same article that Tara Gilbert wrote in 2007, she wrote that the paparazzi justify their tactics by using the 1st amendment Free speech excuse as their failsafe way of saying they are just doing their jobs. The laws that are in place now include one from 1999 that protects celebrities privacy in a minimal way, saying that pictures taken illegally from when paparazzi have trespassed can not be sold for profit. Hollywood. om author Ken wok describes the law as needing to be updated. This law doesn't say anything about car chases, doesn't protect the bystanders who are getting involved when the paparazzi get too angsty and doesn't put a boundary on how aggressive they can be. Although there are those few celebrities who use the paparazzi as a way to get more publicity and continue to be relevant, there are far more who are fighting back against them. Literally. According to Darrell Hartman's June 7 2010 article in Vanity Fair, Sean Penn found a pa parazzi in his hotel room nd proceeded to dangle the guy out his hotel room window by his heels. Kanye West smashed a paparazzos camera after they harassed him in an airport. And hugh grant threw a tub of baked beans at the paparazzi after they had followed him in london. He also karate kicked another pap in New York. Now that have gone over the problems and the causes, we can try to find solutions. Luckily, Governor Schwarzenegger was already thinking about this problem a month ago.Patrick McGreevy wrote an article in the Los Angeles Times on October 1, 2010 saying that the governor signed a bill that cracks down on photographers who drive recklessly in pursuit of celebrities or block sidewalks. It Includes possible jail time of a year. The bill also has greater punishments of the photographers who break trespassing laws and those who recklessly flout traffic ordinances. It charges over $5000 to any photographer who interferes with anyones car, not just a celebrities. However any p hotographers means newspaper journalists or television cameras are included too.By increasing the fee, hopefully paparazzi will be less likely to be aggressive and endanger peoples safety. While this bill is great, I suggest taking it even farther. Forcing the magazines to lower their rates for pictures of celebrities will make paparazzi think twice about the repercussions of driving recklessly. Andrew Blankstein of Century City news wrote in an article on October 1 2010, that explained how the value of celebrity photos tends to increase the franticness of paparazzi behavior. By taking away the reward's value, gambling with reckless driving may seem like its not worth it.Combined with the new bill that increases their punishments, the paparazzi will be forced to the conclusion that the risk of getting caught isn't worth the money they would get from a magazine. And lastly the one thing that all of us can do easily, is if we ever see a celebrity being harassed by paparazzi, we can ca ll the authorities. Most paparazzi get charges against them dropped because no witnesses come forward. With the extra punishments involved, these paparazzi will have to risk jail, or simply abide by the law. In conclusion, paparazzi are dangerous to celebs and innocent bystanders alike.Dubner states in his 2009 article that â€Å"when you are famous, your every move is of interest to someone, and consequently of value to someone else. † The bill that the governor signed last month will raise the punishments for paparazzi who break the law, and by forcing the magazines to lower the price of celebrity pictures by more than 80%, the payoff wont be as great for the photographers, hopefully discouraging them from doing anything illegal to get the pictures. These things combined can help celebrities, athletes, and normal people alike stay safe when paparazzis are around. SLIDESHOW

LACMA Museum Visit Essay

The third floor of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art houses a permanent collection on Ancient Egyptian art. One of the pieces there is a 13†³ high figurine of the goddess Wadjet, sculpted from bronze in during the 26th Dynasty, est. 664-525 BCE. The figurine is in the round, with only the goddess’s feet attached the rectangular base she stands on. The hieroglyphs on the base identify her, as well as the name and parentage of the person who dedicated her figurine. She is shown in the traditional ancient Egyptian pose, with her left foot forward. She is wearing some sort of dress, but her decidedly feminine figure, with a curved abdomen, narrow waist, and protruding breasts, is clearly portrayed through it. Her right arm is held rigidly at her side, again in strict stylistic convention, and her left arm bends only at the elbow to hold whatever less enduring material was placed there. In fact, both of her hands were clearly intended to encircle props, but these have been lost and as such, what they once were can only be inferred from other portrayals of the goddess. She clearly wears necklaces, armbands, and bracelets; this highly detailed work is also present on her lion’s mane, which is shaped similarly to the pharoah’s headdress. She has the head of a lioness, upon which rests the sacred cobra and sun disk, called the uraeus. The goddess Wadjet was emblematic of Lower Egypt- she was often portrayed with her counterpart in Upper Egypt, Nekhbet, handing their joint power to the pharaoh of the time. Other than those human depictions, she was usually shown as a cobra, which allows this piece to be dated- she was only pictured with the lioness head after her mythology was merged with that of Bast, the war goddess of Lower Egypt, in the Late Dynastic period. (source?) As a symbol of Lower Egypt, it can be surmised that she was holding a papyrus  scepter in her left hand, and an ankh in her right. These figurines were commonly bought by wealthy patrons visiting temples. They often had the remains of animals inside them. Put more stuff here. Sources: _Figurine of the Goddess Wadjet_. 664-525 BCE. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles. Watterson, Barbara. _Gods of Ancient Egypt_. 1984. Godalming, Surrey: Bramley Books Limited, 1999.

Idealism, Realism, And Marxism - 1559 Words

What do the theories we have looked at to this point (idealism, realism, Marxism) tell us about the prospects, and necessary conditions, for cooperation in international politics? International politics have been in our nation since the beginning of time. Nations have tried to work together and international politics have given many tries a cooperation. In today’s world conflict is always occurring. Many different world issues pop up every single day. Through looking at international relations and the theories included one is able to look beneath the surface to try and figure out what it would take for the nations around the world to cooperate successfully. Every day it begins to seem more and more unlikely for the entire world to get†¦show more content†¦Realism, on the other hand, is the polar opposite. The theory of realism leads people to believe that human nature is fundamentally bad. Those whom are realists look at the world for what it really is. Instead of com ing up with ideas and dreams they work with what is in from of them at the time. This group is made up by those who are driven by the desire to dominate others, form into conflict groups, and perpetually compete for power. This is the side of the world that wants to be the best. Dyson included a strong line in his novel when writing about realists, â€Å"To realists, humans are inherently sinful. We lust for power and dominance, we fear one another, we are violent. This basic nature is unchanging† (27). Right here Dyson helps the reader see how realists really are. They strive for power and want their nation to be the best it could be. This once again comes with good and bad sides. While the determination of this group would help them to get things done, it would also lead to their failures. Due to the ways of which they are so competitive they may resort to violent acts in order to get what they want (27). War may be caused in order to get their way. The third theory that wi ll be brought to attention in this paper is Marxism. This theory differs from the two previous. Marxists have strong beliefs bases off morality along with beliefsShow MoreRelatedThe Traditional Global Environment Evolved Into The Modern Global System1233 Words   |  5 PagesQuestion 1: Starting in 1900, the traditional global environment evolved into the modern global system. As international relations scholars have attempted to examine and explain this change, six worldviews have emerged. These are Realism, Liberalism, Idealism, Neo-Marxism, Constructivism, and Feminism. In an essay format answer, you are to discuss the main characteristics of each worldview. One of the peculiarities of research of international relations is the variety of conceptual constructionsRead MorePhilosophy of Science in Social Research1455 Words   |  6 Pagesapproaches of philosophy of science in social research- * Realism * Empiricism * Positivism * Post positivism * Idealism * Rationalism * Functionalism * Structuralism * Utilitarianism * Instrumentalism * Feminism * Materialism * Skepticism * Nomothetic and Ideographic * Solipsism * Atomism * Holism * Perspectivism * Relativism These are described below- * Realism: Realism is a perspective of social research which representsRead MoreThe Between Domestic And International Affairs1504 Words   |  7 Pagesnations should have the right for self-determination. No one main power should control multiple nations anymore. In 1948, apartheid emerged, where racial segregation was established that would ensure that whites remained the dominant power in Africa. Marxism, the idea that material possessions such as natural resources, land, military forces, and technology are the most important things to have in communities, became popular in former colonies that were economically unstable. America showed its defensivenessRead More Philosophical And Ideological Perspectives In Education Essay examples784 Words   |  4 PagesPhilosophical and Ideological Perspectives in Education continue to examine the major schools of philosophy of education through the systems approach. It also considers the relationship of education to major ideologies such as Liberalism, Conservativism, and Marxism. It analyzes the impact of philosophy and ideology on educational theory and practice by examining such theories as Essentialism, Perennialism, Progressivism, and Social Reconstructionism. Although concentrating on the philosophy of education, itRead MoreAn Ideal Educational Model And How Do Education1386 Words   |  6 Pagesfull potential both as a student and as a member of society. The overview of the different educational philosophies was eye opening to me. The one I disagreed most with was Neo-Marxism. The potential for this ideology is to completely control and dictate the curriculum to promote the ruling classes own agenda. Neo-Marxism seeks to empower and enrich the capitalistic dominant culture. This ideology to me is cold and shows nothing but selfish gain for a socialist government. Schools do not need toRead MoreContemporary Mainstream Approaches : Neo Realism And Neo Liberalism1527 Words   |  7 PagesChapter 8: Contemporary mainstream approaches (neo-realism and neo-liberalism) In the previous chapters, we’ve taken a broad glance of Realism and Liberalism; in this chapter we take a look at the modern version of these political theories and their respective differences. Although Realism and Neo-realism are close in name, they aren’t that close in ideologies. Both theories differ on their definitions of power and anarchy along with their respective model structures of the international system.Read MoreIdealism And Its Impact On Education1668 Words   |  7 Pages As an educator, Idealism was always observe as a Language Arts based theory. Idealism philosophy thrives on logical thinking, a liberal education approach with consequently focusing on theory first ,practice later. The constant effort plus strive that students must accomplish to achieve perfection in reading, writing, speaking and listening is the reason why idealism is paradoxical. Idealism does not take into consideration the constantly changing variables that occur. When I t ook the self-evaluationRead MoreHenry Kissinger : The United States Foreign Policy, Strategy, And Negotiations With Other Countries During The 20th Essay2156 Words   |  9 Pagesformation and breakdown of the Sino-Soviet alliance, the Korean War, Nixon’s trip to China, and the crises in the Taiwan Straits. With the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism, China articulated an alternative vision of its social structure and power relations. Unlike the CPSU who followed orthodox Marxism-Leninism, the CCP integrated the universal theory of Marxism-Leninism with China’s specific condition. China’s national identity was created through a combination of Chinese’s inclusive mindset and ConfuciusRead MoreHenry Kissinger : The United States Foreign Policy, Strategy, And Negotiations With Other Countries During The 20th Essay2162 Words   |  9 Pagesformation and breakdown of the Sino-Soviet alliance, the Korean War, Nixon’s trip to China, and the crises in the Ta iwan Straits. With the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism, China articulated an alternative vision of its social structure and power relations. Unlike the CPSU who followed orthodox Marxism-Leninism, the CCP integrated the universal theory of Marxism-Leninism with China’s specific condition. China’s national identity was created through a combination of Chinese’s inclusive mindset and ConfuciusRead MoreRealism and Liberalism in Literature1397 Words   |  6 Pagescreated and developed by thinkers with the help of historical process. Realism, liberalism, Marxism, constructivism, and idealism are the main theories of international relations but among these 5 mainstream theories, two of them have more validity and effectiveness: Realism and liberalism. These two theories of international relations have a very high reputation and efficiency to explain and understand of the historical process. Realism and liberalism may seem totally different from each other but at