1. Identify major areas of conflict in modern world

• Israel / Palestine - territorial and religious war

• Iraq - US coalition troops station there, situation very unstable

• Afghanistan - US troops continue search for terrorists and occupy part of the country

• North Korea - conflict with South Korea supported by Western countries, in particular US, possible possession of nuclear weapon (recently US intelligence said they have 8 nuclear heads, but it mainly on satellite photos)

• Pakistan / India - conflict over Islamic Kashmir, both states have experimented with nuclear weapon and still continue to threaten each other from time to time (latest terrorist attack in Kashmir during the parliamentary elections April, 2004). In India there are also conflicts between

• Pakistan - US intelligence discovered that Pakistani scientists sold knowledge about nuclear weapon building to North Korea, Iran, Syria, Malaysia and others.

• Russia / Chechnya - Chechnya is officially under Russian military supervision, but some Chechnya's people rebel against Russian presence and there are partisans / terrorists (attack on president Ahmed Kadrow in Groznyy)

• Balkans - conflicts between different ethnic groups, also religious conflicts

• Cuba - problem of Fidel Castro and conflict with US and other countries over human rights, trade barriers

• China - conflict with Taiwan and problem of Tibet, violation of human rights

• Indonesia - Muslim separatists, conflict in East Timor (massacre in 1999 during referendum about separation of East Timor form Indonesia)

• Thailand - Muslim separatists

• Algeria - Muslim separatists, want to take over governmental power

• Uzbekistan - terrorist attacks, conflict between Muslim radicals and authoritarian government

• Syria - terrorist attacks, is suspected by the US of terrorist groups support

• Nigeria - ethnic and religious conflicts

• Sri Lanka - domestic war, partisans

• Columbia - domestic conflict, partisans and guerrillas, and connected with it all drug mafia

• Venezuela - conflict between current populist president Chavez and old business oligarchy

2. Choose one of the current conflicts and analyse it form the perspective of major IR theories

War in Iraq

Realist Theory

• US suspected Iraq of possessing weapons that could be a serious danger to US survival. There were also threats on the part of Iraq of producing or possessing nuclear weapon. Therefore US decided to attack Iraq in order to prevent an attack form Iraq in future, when it will already posses the weapon.

• Bush had a duty towards nation and state to protect the country form terrorism, which was financed by some Muslim countries, Iraq among them, and it justifies the attack on a sovereign country

• It was a necessary show of military capacities after the attack on 11 September. Is also served as warning signal and a deterrent to other countries, which hold opinions similar to what Saddam Husain said -Libya as an example. After the attack on Iraq, Libya revealed its plans of building nuclear weapon, gave information to US intelligence about Pakistani scientists selling technology of nuclear weapon building to other countries and said it will no longer support terrorists. In exchange for US non-intervention Kaddafi also agreed to open his country to inspections.

• American government supports radical regimes and authoritarian governments in return for their involvement in anti-terrorists campaign

World System Liberalism

• US wanted to expand economically and gain access to Middle - East oil

• US administration hoped that with removal of Saddam Husain implanting democracy and liberal trade would be easy - people from the region would benefit from trade contracts with US and their investments there

• Political elites that were formerly suppressed by Husain's dictatorship could be incorporated into government and given power over the Iraq's territory and in return would maintain pro-American foreign policy

• Many of the Pentagon and military administration management is in hands of experienced managers from big industrial corporations that would profit form war with Iraq (like weapon producing companies)

• All countries are part of one system and unstable situation in one of them is a threat to all the others

Complex Interdependence

• Using military force is expensive and often ineffective and the US coalition miscalculated the costs (resistance of people in Iraq and domestic opinion) and expected benefits

• Symbolism of `national security' so often used by Bush and his administration served to justify American military involvement in Iraq and it was misused as it has been previously in case of Vietnam

• Hierarchy based on military power has seriously eroded and non-state terrorist groups find it easier to use force than before and want be threatened by show of force as traditional nation-states could be.

• Involvement in trade in Middle-East and other Arabic countries, as well as high number of Islamic immigrants in France and Germany stopped them from getting involved in the conflict

3. Compare the major IR approaches: realism, modernization / world system liberalism / institutionalism / internationalism / complex interdependence.

Realist Theory

Factor	RT	Comments
Nature of power	Military, resources, manpower + economic strength	H. Morgenthou M. Walzer (capabilities)
Balance of power	Balance between adversaries
National interest	Self-interest needs to be secured	Can't count on others, self-interest will prevail
Definition of peace	Temporary, break in war
Principal actors	Nation-states	As one unit, acquire “human qualities, foreign policy separated form domestic
Relations and goals of actors	Survival is principal goal	Don't believe in multinational organisation, alliances
Means used	Power and stability	Zero-sum vision of politics
Ethics	Responsibility for the state	Justifies means
Human nature and behaviour / `state of nature'	Anarchy, competition, war conflict, surprise, risk

Problems:

• Globalisation ruins the theory a little, although can be seen to some extent as imperialism (extension of national interest)

• War in Vietnam showed that military capabilities were not enough: some intangible factors proved to be more important than tangible

• Security paradox: security of one nation means insecurity of other nation (principal of deterrence, balance of power, MAD)

• US 1960s missile gap (SU started a missile tests): a response was putting a man on the Moon, Macnamara - head of Ford company, started to work on US missile program and defence (connection between industry and state)

World System Theory

• Modernisation theory

Development

• Economic, literacy rate, HID (human development index - economic, social and cultural), pluralism

• Transformation from - to - more a process (how far you are form the exit point)

• Transition to - clear goals, model to follow (how far do I need to go? How far to the goal)

• Imperialism (according to Lenin a stage in capitalism - colonisation, control over resources

Immanuel Wallerstien: World System Theory (`70s Marxist theory of capitalism, very critical)

Core

Semi- core

Periphery

• Hegemony and control and domination: will to adapt vs. obligation

• A. Gramsci - Marxist theorist; hegemony - spreading and absorption - sometimes is the will to adapt, developed a concept of:

• False continuousness - make people feel happy and create certain expectations which perpetuate a pattern of political and social relations

• Problem: there is an assumption in this theory that people really want something else, but what is `else'?

• It operates at all levels: economic, political and cultural

• Those that could act against the system don't do it, because they fall into a pattern, they take part in profits

• Economy is predominant, but there are also other important tools

• Bonus for modernisation kind of thinking

• World is one system, all phenomena can be explained through economic terms

• “dependence” - about trade exploitation between North and South (Frank, Cardoso); justification is the growing disparity of wealth: imbalance between North and South trade terms and imbalance of military power

`Iron Triangle' - relationship between interest group (contractor), legislative power (subcommittee) and administration (arm service)

• goods that are restricted in trade (arms)

• contractors sometimes support financially election campaigns of legislative branch

• legislative branch has control over certain amount of money and wants a share in power, they also want further sponsorship for re-election

• administrative office of the army is cut our form the main structure, long-term decision making process (2-3 years, steady job), has to present why this particular equipment is good (usually run their own tests, often subjective and not very rigorous)

• `iron triangle' shows that politics are in hands of big business: supremacy of economy over political power

Factor	IWP	Comments
Nature of power	Economy, military is extension	Influences others
Balance of power	Through cooptation	Involve critiques in decision-making and benefits
National interest	Economic strength
Definition of peace	No barriers to trade and movement, war disruptive	`Bought' through share in benefits
Principal actors	Business corporations eclipse traditional territorial states	Multinational, states of origin protect their interests
Relations and goals of actors	Economic expansion / Dependence	Periphery countries depend on core countries for goods
Means used	Economic domination
Ethics
Human nature and behaviour / `state of nature'	Stability is important, hostility doesn't hurt bur war does

• Cooptation: you don't fight critiques, but make it possible for them to work on what they want (share information, technology to create market) involve others in your endeavours, give share in decision-making (in controlled fashion)

• Crisis: when you lose control over a case - stability is important

Interdependence in World Politics

Interdependence - means mutual dependence, situations characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in different countries. This often results through international transactions - flows of money, goods, people, and messages across international boundaries. Interdependence will depend on the constraints or costs associated with these transactions.

Complex interdependence is an ideal type of international system, deliberately constructed to contrast with a “realist” ideal type.

Factor	IWP	Comments
Nature of power	Economy and people	Possession of capital
Balance of power	Can't be applied to market	Is no longer a solution
National interest	Competitive advantage
Definition of peace	Peace is more logic, war is not natural (state egoism)	People can maximise their goals
Principal actors	National-states and international regimes	Contract, trans-national and trans-governmental relations
Relations and goals of actors	Exchange of goods, cooperation, competition	Voluntary restriction of competition through cooperation at international level
Means used	Economic cooperation	Use of force is too costly
Ethics
Human nature and behaviour / `state of nature'	People are generally good, competition but cooperation

International regimes - by creating or accepting procedures, rules, or institutions for certain kinds of activity, governments regulate and control Trans-national and interstate relations

Lock, Erazmus

• Government is a social contract between politicians and people who elect them to protect economic freedom

A. Smith, Ricardo

• Market system, competitive advantage

• `public goods' are outcome of competition

Fukuyama:

• USRR fell apart because it lost its competitive advantage

• Liberal competition of ideas is more in agreement with human nature

Problem:

• Danger of monopoly, also in politics - brings imperialism

Connected with interdependence are:

Internationalism

(international systems are extension of domestic systems)

• Close to classical liberal thought

• International laws are important, int'l organisations need to be there for cooperation of nations

• Trade, exchange of goods and capital: market-forces, cooperation will lead to harmony of interests

• Know more about other states: awareness

Idealism

• tied to WWI: collective security (understood as public good that depends on all actors)

• build institutions, organisations to promote security (League of Nations) to prevent monopolies on int'l arena (UN, NATO - collective security, you don't need a net of alliances and bilateral treaties)

• thought that they would overcome national tendencies, but were unable to prevent WWII and economic conflicts deriving from Great Depression, under pressure the cooperative spirit sized to exist

• there were no tools to enforce peace, being part of the same organisation didn't stop competition

Institutionalism

• We have to stop thinking about nation-states as the main actors

• In order to prevent war we should build as many connections and cooperation on trade as possible

• Not relationships that depend on good will or temporary arrangements of government (then the change of government means a change of foreign policy)

• Limited by institutions

• Problem: at which point the web becomes so complicated that war is no longer of interest?

Democratic peace: democratic countries don't fight wars with other democratic countries, because there is a lot of interdependence on the level of nations and people (NGOs, trade relations), which bring pressure form the bottom; only endangerment of those relations should bring reaction form the people concerned

• Add more actors to the picture, diversity inside of each system - democratic peace happens at different levels

• Power comes form the people, population and possession of capital

Problem:

• Democratic peace vs. clash of civilisations - will cultural difference influence the likeness of going into war, e.g. US and Japan

4. Who are the sub-national actors? How does the emergence of sub-national actors change the character of relations among states?

Sub-national actors are groups of people (in and out of government) that may attempt to influence policy. Sub-national actors include among others: regional and local governments, lobby groups and political parties. In dealing with other states these sub-national actors are not constrained to two-way political relations with national state actors, but engage with a variety of actors in diverse arenas. Depending on the attitude of these sub-national channels the relations between states themselves may change. These might be a source of conflict or may have a positive effect on the states concerned. They allow for direct and comparably faster relations between lower level political tiers.

The EU is a prime example of the influence of sub-national actors on relations among states. The process of European integration has seen an extensive development and expansion of extra-national channels for sub-national political activity. Although national states continue to provide important arenas for sub-national influence, sub-national actors have been brought directly into the European arena. Regional and local authorities set up independent offices in Brussels; they interact with each other across national borders; they have direct access to the European Commission; they are formally represented in a European assembly, and in some cases they participate directly in the Council of Ministers. This multiplication of channels for sub-national mobilization is a part of a broader transformation in the European Union from state-centric to multi-level governance.

Multi-level governance describes the diffusion of authoritative decision-making across multiple territorial levels. It is the result of two sets of developments - regionalization and European integration - that converge in pulling decision-making away from national states.

Sub-national agents: local TV, press, church, political parties, local oligarchs, multinational corporations, guerillas, local communities, minorities

• Very important in political relations

• Because politicians, who shape political relations and are ultimate decision makers always take their interests or influence into account

How relations between countries change?

• Some power it transferred from government onto these agents.

Examples:

• Polish government looked for support from Catholic Church in Poland to encourage people to learn more, and not to be afraid of Poland's admission to European Union.

• Large companies producing military equipment and their lobbying or support (donations) to political parties more in favor of intervention, or more likely to engage in military operation

• FDI, economic ties between countries

5 What is the relationship between state and nationalism? How is the relationship evolving?

6 What types of nationalism can we identify in the modern world

7 How important is the concept of nationalism in human development

Nation - a group of people with cultural, sometimes also ethnic identity and common history.

Nation is a process of subsequent remembering & forgetting.

Nationalism - believe in national identity

State:

• People

• Territory

• Ability to control territory

• Government

State - territory, institutions, people, autonomous government that exercises power over people, provides for legal and juridical conditions for citizenship

Civic (homogenious population) vs. Ethnic (emerges in these countries that have heterogeneous population (USA), they do not identify with ethnic attributes but with some types of values

Challenges to nationalism: globalization, liberalism, (advocates individual freedom also from state-control, less collectivism), fascism, communism, domination of economic development more important than authority.

First modern nation state - XVII England - nationalism and patriotism became merged with the idea of individualism and participation in politic system

Nationalism was the most successful political force of the 19th century. It emerged from two main sources: the Romantic exaltation of "feeling" and "identity and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state be based on a "people" rather than, for example, a dynasty, God, or imperial domination. Both Romantic "identity nationalism" and Liberal "civic nationalism" were essentially middle class movements. There were two main ways of exemplification: the French method of "inclusion" - essentially that anyone who accepted loyalty to the civil French state was a "citizen". In practice this meant the enforcement of a considerable degree of uniformity, for instance the destruction of regional languages. The US can be seen to have, eventually, adopted this ideal of civic inclusive nationalism. The German method, required by political circumstances, was todefine the "nation" in ethnic terms. Ethnicity in practice came down to speaking German and (perhaps) having a German name. For the largely German-speaking Slavic middle classes of Prague, Agram etc. who took up the nationalist ideal, the ethnic aspect became even more important than it had been for the Germans. It is debateable whether, in practice, all nationalisms ended up as Chauvinistic and aggressive, but the very nature of nationalism requires that boundaries be drawn. Unless these boundaries are purely civic, successful nationalism, in many cases produced a situation in which substantial groups of outsiders were left within "nation-states".

The term `nationalism' is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political sovereignty. (1) raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual's membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) raises questions about the whether sovereignty must be understood as the acquisition of full statehood with complete authority for domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.

It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states -- whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty. While many states are nations in some sense, there are many nations which are not fully sovereign states. As an example, the Native American Iroquois constitute a nation but not a state, since they do not possess the requisite political authority over their internal or external affairs. If the members of the Iroquois nation were to strive to form a sovereign state in the effort to preserve their identity as a people, they would be exhibiting a kind of nationalism.

Nationalism has long been ignored as a topic in political philosophy, written off as a relic from bygone times. It has only recently come into the focus of philosophical debate, partly in consequence of rather spectacular and troubling nationalist clashes, like those in Rwanda, former Yugoslavia and former Soviet republics. The surge of nationalism usually presents a morally ambivalent, and for this reason often fascinating, picture. `National awakening' and struggle for political independence are often both heroic and inhumanly cruel; the formation of a recognizably national state often responds to deep popular sentiment, but can and does sometimes bring in its wake inhuman consequences, including violent expulsion and `cleansing' of non-nationals, all the way to organized mass murder. The moral debate on nationalism reflects a deep moral tension between solidarity with oppressed ethnic national groups on the one hand and the repulsion people feel in the face of crimes perpetrated in the name of nationalism on the other. Moreover, the issue of nationalism points to the wider domain of problems, having to do with the treatment of ethnic and cultural differences within democratic polity, which are arguably among the most pressing problems of contemporary political theory.

Term `nationalism' has a variety of meanings, it centrally encompasses the two phenomena noted at the outset: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their identity as members of that nation and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take in seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political sovereignty

Types of nationalism:

• Civic

• Ethnic

Classical nationalism - is the political program that seeks the creation and maintenance of a fully sovereign state owned by a given ethno-national group (`people' or `nation') and that sees the creation and maintenance of this state as a primary duty of each member of the group. Starting from the assumption that the appropriate (or `natural') unit of culture is ethno-nation, classical nationalism involves the claim that a primary duty of each member is to abide in cultural matters by one's recognizably ethno-national culture.

8. What is the relationship between the concepts of capitalism and imperialism

Imperialism has taken many forms and continues to exist in the world today. It is the economic and/or political domination of a society by another society. Historians of imperialism usually divide the history of imperialism into a number of distinct epochs or periods in time:

• Mercantile Capitalism - This stage began about the 16th century being ushered into existence by the pioneering journeys of people such as Columbus who "discovered" America. Almost immediately merchants from the European nations, Spain, Britain et. al. began to set up operations in these newly discovered lands. This stage is marked by the activity of plunder, that is, robbery of these countries wealth and even of its people. It was this superior military technology which enabled the European merchants, and noblemen, to dominate the indigenous populations of such countries.

• Colonialism. During the stage of mercantile capitalism companies were involved in the plunder of the newly discovered territories. They were the governing power in the territories in which they settled. During the colonial stage European nation states entered into the fray, they actually took over the administration of the colonies. Armies were sent to those countries in which the indigenous population did not accept their rule. In many cases immigration was encouraged to the given country. Capitalists used these colonial markets, which were protected, to sell their products.

• Neo-colonialism/Neo-imperialism. This is the present day stage. Since about then many former colonized countries have gained their "independence". Yet despite this independence it remains the case that many of these former colonies find that they are still very much dominated by their former colonial masters, or, that they have gained new masters. The point is simple, while the former colonies have gained formal political independence they still remain economically dependent on the West and thereby their "political independence" counts for little.

Marxist view on capitalism:

What they want is monopolistic control over foreign sources of supply and foreign markets, enabling them to buy and sell on specially privileged terms, to shift orders from one subsidiary to another. to favour this country or that depending on which has the most advantageous tax, labour and other policies- in a word they want to do business on their terms and with whoever they please

Ways to preserve: military, economic, aid

Capitalism and Imperialism

J.A. Hobson, a British liberal writing at the time of the fierce debate on imperialism during the Boer War, observed the spectacle of the Scramble for Africa and emphasized changes in European social structures and attitudes as well as capital flow, though his emphasis on the latter seems to have been the most influential and provocative. His so-called accumulation theory suggested that that capitalism suffered from under-consumption due the rise of monopoly capitalism and the resultant concentration of wealth in fewer hands, which apparently gave rise to a misdistribution of purchasing power. Logically, this argument is sound, given the huge impoverished industrial working class then often far too poor to consume the goods produced by an industrialized economy. His analysis of capital flight and the rise of mammoth cartels later influenced Lenin in his Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, which has become a basis for the modern neo-Marxist analysis of imperialism.

Contemporary World-Systems theorist Immanuel Wallerstein perhaps better addresses Hobson's counterarguments without degrading Hobson's underlying inferences. Wallerstein's conception of imperialism as a part of a general, gradual extension of capital investment from the center of the industrial countries to an overseas periphery thus coincides with Hobson's. According to Wallerstein, Mercantilism became the major tool of semi-peripheral, newly industrialized countries such as Germany, France, Italy, and Belgium. Wallerstein hence perceives formal empire as performing a function analogous to that of the mercantilist drives of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in England and France. The expansion of the Industrial Revolution hence contributed to the emergence of an era of aggressive national rivalry, leading to the late nineteenth century scramble for Africa and formal empire.

Criticisms of Capitalism

Marxists and others criticize capitalism for enriching capitalists (owners of capital) at the expense of workers without necessarily working themselves ("the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer"), and for the degree of control over the lives of workers enjoyed by owners. Supporters of capitalism counter this criticism by claiming that ownership of productive capacity provides motivation to owners to increase productive capacity and so generally increase the average material wealth ("we all get richer"). Opponents of capitalism counter this by pointing out that the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage in the United States is below what it was 35 years ago.

Marxists believe that the capitalism allows capitalists - the owners of capital - to exploit workers. The existence of private property is seen as a restriction on freedom. Marxists also argue that capitalism has inherent contradictions that will inevitably lead to its collapse. Capitalism is seen as just one stage in the evolution of the economy of a society.

Marxists also often argue that the structure of capitalism necessarily leads to unjust exploitation of workers, regardless of whether or not the political system is one of an elected democracy or not. For this reason Marxists typically emphasise the capitalist economic system of western countries rather than the democratic political system. A capitalist system is an economic system - although often associated with democratic systems, capitalist systems have functioned well under unelected governments, two examples being Hong Kong and Singapore.

In whose interest is capitalism?

Finally, the arguments appeal strongly to different interest groups, and often support their positions as "rights".

Currently recognized property owners, especially corporate shareholders and holders of deeds in land or rights to exploit natural capital, are generally recognized as advocating extremely strong property rights.

However, the definition of capital has broadened in recent years to recognize and include the rationales of other major interest groups: artists or other creators who rely on copyright law, legal patent and trademark holders who improve what they call intellectual capital, workers who are largely trading in their own less creative labor guided by a body of shared and imitative instructional capital - the trades themselves, all have reasons to prefer status quo property law over any given set of proposed reforms.

Even judges, mediators or administrators charged with fair execution of some ethical code and the maintenance of some relationship between human capital and financial capital within a capitalist representative democracy, tend to have strong self-interest reasons to argue for one view or another - typically, that view that assigns them a meaningful role in the capitalist economy.

Karl Marx made the strong claim that this role actually affects their cognition, and leads them inexorably to irreconcilable points of view, i.e. that no agreement about capitalism was possible by "class collaboration", and "class struggle" between these defined it. This view was advocated by many revolutionary movements of the 20th century, but was often abandoned in practice as it seemed to lead to "class war", endless violence between those with irreconcilable points of view.

Today, even those parties traditionally opposed to capitalism, e.g. the Communist Party of China of Mao Zedong, see some role for it in the development of their society. Debate focuses on incentive systems, not on the overall moral structure or ethical clarity of "capitalism".

What is capitalism good for?

One important modern argument is that capitalism simply isn't a system, merely a set of questions, challenges, and assertions regarding human behavior. Like biology, or ecology and its relationship to animal behavior, it is made complex by human language, culture and ideas. Jane Jacobs and George Lakoff argued separately that there was a Guardian Ethic which was fundamentally related to nurturing and protection of life, and a Trader Ethic more related to the unique primate practice of trade. Jacobs thought that the two were made and kept separate in history, and that any collaboration between them was corruption, i.e. any unifying system that claimed to make assertions regarding both, would simply be serving itself.

Other doctrines focus narrowly on the application of capitalist means to natural capital (Paul Hawken) or individual capital (Ayn Rand) - assuming a more general moral and legal framework which discourages these same mechanisms when applied to non-living beings coercively, e.g. "creative accounting" combining individual creativity with the complex instructional base of accounting itself.

Aside from the very narrow arguments advancing specific mechanisms, it is quite difficult or pointless to distinguish critiques of capitalism from critiques of Western European civilization, colonialism or imperialism. These arguments often recur interchangeably within the context of the extremely complex anti-globalization movement, which is often (but not universally) described as "anti-capitalist".

9. Explain the nature of dependency on a real-life example

Summary: Fifteen years after most of Africa received its independence, Europe is still present and influential in the continent. The European presence has, however, shifted from overt and direct to more subtle forms. While military occupation and sovereign control over African territories have all but been eliminated, political influence, economic preponderance, and cultural conditioning remain. Britain and France, and with them the rest of the European Community, maintain a relatively high level of aid and investment, trade dominance, and a sizable flow of teachers, businessmen, statesmen, tourists and technical assistants. Perhaps most symbolically significant of all, the long-nurtured dream of an institutionalized Eur-African community was finally inaugurated on February 28, 1975, when the convention of trade and cooperation was signed at Lomé between the European Nine and the then-37 independent Black African states (plus nine islands and enclaves in the Caribbean and the Pacific).

Fifteen years after most of Africa received its independence, Europe is still present and influential in the continent. The European presence has, however, shifted from overt and direct to more subtle forms. While military occupation and sovereign control over African territories have all but been eliminated, political influence, economic preponderance, and cultural conditioning remain. Britain and France, and with them the rest of the European Community, maintain a relatively high level of aid and investment, trade dominance, and a sizable flow of teachers, businessmen, statesmen, tourists and technical assistants. Perhaps most symbolically significant of all, the long-nurtured dream of an institutionalized Eur-African community was finally inaugurated on February 28, 1975, when the convention of trade and cooperation was signed at Lomé between the European Nine and the then-37 independent Black African states (plus nine islands and enclaves in the Caribbean and the Pacific).

Thus, Eur-African relations are a matter of continuity and change, but judgments of them vary considerably, according to the importance given to one or the other of these two elements. To some, the successor of colonialism is neocolonialism and dependency; for others, what is taking place is gradual disengagement, and the multilateralization of ties to the developed nations. The first look askance at the continuing presence, comparing it with an ideal of total mastery of one's destiny; to them the change seems trivial, or worse, insidious. The second emphasize actual changes, the moves toward independence, and see them as part of a continuing process. The best perspective obviously is the one that can encompass and provide an explanation for the largest number of facts.

The dependency approach is now widely used in analyzing Third World developmental problems. According to this school of thought the attainment of political sovereignty masks the reality of continued dependence on world economic structures, and calculations of power and interest within this dependency relationship explain underdevelopment. Impatient with the slow progress of African states toward development and the real difficulty for new nations in narrowing the gap that separates them from the industrial states, dependency analysts locate the source of the new nations' developmental problems not in these nations' own incapacities but in the constraints of international politics and economics. Basically, the metropolitan countries block African development by co-opting African leaders into an international social structure that serves the world capitalist economy. By training and conditioning the upper layer of African society into Western habits of consumption, reading, vacation, style, and other European values, the dominant politico-economic system removes the need for direct intervention and indirect colonial rule; the more the new elites "develop," the more their expectations rise, the more they become programmed to look North, to think Western, and to alienate themselves from their national society, which is locked into its underdevelopment. Since mass development is such a monumental task in the best of conditions, and since it is even more difficult against the wishes and interests of the dominant capitalists, these alienated, Westernized elites are motivated to repress the spread of development ...

10. What are the possible definitions of „development”.

Development normally refers to socioeconomic changes and the formation of modern productive systems, or industrialization. According to the author of authoritarianism and development (chapter three) it is a comprehensive process of change that goes with and beyond socioeconomic development. Development means modernization, secularization, urbanization, technicalization, and deparochialization of politics and values.

According to g. O'Donnell a high level of modernization increases the gap between the society and the state. Government cannot count on the support of sectors other than that of the technocrats, and economic development requires a low level of social unrest (niepokój).Thus, the high level of modernization in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru stimulated authoritarianism, corporatism, and praetorianizm.

Źródło authoritarianism and development (chapter three)

(parochialism ciasnota, małomiasteczkowość, zaściankowość; authoritarian despotyczny, autorytatywny secularyzation-sekularyzacja- przejście majątków, urzędów czy prerogatyw spod władzy kościelnej pod władzę świecką; zeświecczenie, praetorian pretoriański, pretorianin, technocrat koncepcja ustroju społecznego, w którym władzę sprawowaliby technicy, eksperci, organizatorzy i kierownicy produkcji (wysoko wykwalifikowani specjaliści), zakładająca, że postęp techniczny może rozwiązać wszystkie konflikty społeczne; technokratyzm)

11. How does the fact that the world is a „mediated reality” impact on the relations among actors?

12. In what way is the “information capital” an asset in relations among actors?

Most Western theories who emphasize the relationship between communication technologies and democracy have in mind the history of modern libertarian democracies such as UK, France, US and the Netherlands. Therefore they assume that the development of communication technologies and the enhancement of education level, i.e., informization, promote the formation of “rational” and therefore “healthy” public opinions, civil societies and thus democracy. In the very long run, they may have right. However, we should not overlook the fact that informizationon the other helped bring fascism, militarism, racism, and ultranationalizm to the general masses in late - developing capitalist countries. These phenomena would have been impossible without mass media and illiterate, politically ignorant populations.

Źródło From civil society to Information society p233

13. What is the relationship between “anarchy” and “zero-sum” view of political conflict?

Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of all forms of hierarchy, including the state. These philosophies use 'anarchy' to mean a society of free individuals without a government. Philosophical anarchist thought does not advocate chaos or anomie — it intends "anarchy" to refer to a theoretically desirable stateless society.

Generally, anarchists regard all coercive control and authority as unnecessary or undesirable and advocate a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association. However, what constitutes coercion and voluntariness, as well as government, may vary widely from one theorist to another.

As Benjamin Tucker put it, anarchism is the philosophy that "all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the state should be abolished".

From William Godwin's utilitarian anarchism to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism, to Max Stirner's egoism, to Benjamin Tucker's radical individualism, to Peter Kropotkin's anarchist communism, the roots of anarchist thought in modern political philosophy are varied, with many different views of what a society without government should be like. Anarcho-capitalism has roots in classical laissez-faire liberalism but also draws inspiration from the individualist anarchists, despite the latter's rejection of capitalist economics. Primitivism, advocating the dissolution of civilization, is reminiscent of, if not inspired by, the early 19th century Luddite movement.

After World War II a political theory known as anarcho-capitalism developed, mainly in North America. Drawing as much from classical laissez-faire liberalism as well as from traditional anarchist thought, it is disowned by many anarchists. Anarcho-capitalism took the classical liberal critique of government intervention to its utmost consequences, claiming that free markets can provide not only economic goods, but also justice and security and that the state is not only unnecessary to maintain the market mechanism but harmful to it.

Źródło http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anarchism

Zero-Sum view The concept of a zero-sum system originated in a branch of economics called game theory. In a zero-sum game, a gain by one party necessitates a loss for another party. It is the economics of a fixed pie that can be redistributed but cannot be enlarged. The gains and losses always add up to zero.

E.G. The Kosovo "cleansing" is an obvious continuation of this zero-sum mentality. The Serbs and Albanians have endured 50 years of marination in Marxist doctrine and kieptocracy. These people cannot even imagine a capitalist world, where people prosper by serving their neighbors rather than killing or evicting them.

źródło http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae4520575bb.htm

The difference between traditional international politics and the politics of economic and ecological interdependence is NOT the difference between a world of “zero-sum” and “nonzero-sum” games. Military interdependence need not be zero-sum. Indeed, military allies actively seek interdependence to provide enhanced security for all. Even balance of power situation need not be zero-sum. If one side seeks to upset the status quo, then its gain is at the expense of the other. But if most or all participants want a stable status quo, they can jointly gain by preserving the balance of power among them. Conversely, the politics of economic and ecological interdependence involve competition even when large net benefits can be expected from cooperation. There are important continuities, as well as marked differences, between the traditional politics of military security and the politics of economic and ecological interdependence.

Źródło Interdependence in world politics

Conclusion: Anarchy view obtain a free trade between countries, interdependence of sates peace. Zero - sum- one side's gain is the other side's loss. Vision of politics is that If I have advantage you have disadvantage, I win you loose and vise versa.

14. What is linkage and how does it work?

Linkage połączenie, sprzężenie. The ability to buy (or sell) a contract on one exchange and later sell (or buy) the same contract on another exchange.

You link one area of policy to another e.g. human rights and economy. E.G. the case of Jewish that were a citizens of Russia. US government wanted to exchange them for grain but it was changing the value of grain. At the end Russia decided to buy grain from Canada. US government had no influence on decision of government of Canada.

15. What is „democratic peace”?

The Democratic peace theory is a theory in political science which says that no two Democracies have ever gone to war , or will ever go to war. Governments answerable to the people will never go to war with each other, and tend to find alternatives (such as negotiation or arbitration).

It is shown statistically that, controlling for other variables, the likelihood of war between democratic countries is significantly smaller than between non-democracies or between democracies and non-democracies.

The Correlates of War Project has done studies to evaluate the historic merit of this theory. In some 2,000 cases of war or other armed conflicts, they could not find a single case where the theory did not hold. It should be noted that statistically this is an association, and association does not imply causation. There is currently no definitive theory as to why the democratic peace theory is true. I think that Europe before and after II World War could be a good example here. After the war the democracy spread over Western Europe and the wars have not yet occurred. Before the war Europe was all the time a theater of hostilities.

16. Identify major tendencies in the world after WW II. Look at them from the perspective of major IR theories.

The complexity of the world after WW II is unthinkable to be described by the propositions of one theory. The genesis of Liberalism contested the realist thought and went against it specifically after the end of WW II and the birth of United Nations (UN). Especially the end of Cold War ,marked the new era of the New World Order and the triumph of Liberalism. It seemed that Liberals won the battle against Realists. World peace seemed to be permanent ,nations where cooperating with each other. The boarders are disappearing (e.g. enlargement of EU) ,world trade is increasing. Until 9/11 liberal theory seemed to be a winner. But after that event it looks like that realism will be winner again. It looks like that 20^th and 21^st centuries are realistic epochs. There are many credible reasons to prove it. If we look deeply in the history of 20^th and 21^st century we will understand that events such as Holocaust ,the Cold War ,the expansion of regionalism ,the global terrorism ,the rapid production of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction and lot of other examples persuade us to claim that we live in a strict realist regime.

Realist theory perfectly described the Cold War times. Two states were the predominant actors in world politics. All other actors were either important or unimportant (e.g. institutions). The normative core of realist is national security and state survival. These are the values that drive realist doctrine and realist foreign policy. Both USA and USSR wanted to secure the survival of their states. Thanks to balance of power there were no major wars during those times. Both nations were afraid of MAD (Mutual Assure Destruction) ,that prevented the world from wars. These facts can be also described by complex interdependence theory. Both superpowers were so dependent on the actions of the other state. The destruction of one state meant also the destruction of the other one.

After Cold War Liberal thinking seemed to be the winner. But the war on terrorism and hostilities in Iraq shows us that virtually realist are right. The nations fight for their interests and survival. There is no clear balance of power because we have only one superpower. And probably that is why all these events occurred. But on the other hand there are regions in the world were liberalism is a winner. Certainly in Europe ,the boarders are disappearing and cooperation between the nations seems to be the greatest in the whole history of continent. The liberals claim that people are good and that we can achieve peace through education. The more international is the thinking the less is the probability of the war. We can achieve peace also thanks to international organization like UN (institutionalism).

In today Europe complex interdependence theory seems to be suitable also. The more complex is the web of interdependence the less is possibility of war. This web is perfectly developed in EU. Nations cooperate with each other ,the trade is increasing and nobody wants to destroy this web because it creates wealth to people. Wealth and security are the main interests of every country.

17. What are the major issues confronting the world today? Look at them from the perspective of major IR theories.

I think there are two major issues that confront the world today - globalization and war on terrorism.

Globalization is a product of liberalism and complex interdependence. Globalization creates a network of independence between nations. Every state has business all over the world and do not want to give them up. Thanks to network of cooperation and flow of goods and money peace can be sustained. Also education and international institutions play a role to prevent world from wars. These facts would be hard to be described by realist theory.

On the other hand we have war against terrorism. This issues can be described by realists. Certain nation-states want to secure their survival and they do not count on help of the others. Here war in Iraq is perfect example. We can also claim that the war has began because there was no clear balance of power. US can do whatever they want and those actions do not have to be justified. Even UN could not play a preventing role here. So the supporters of liberalism and especially their institutional wing can not describe it. According to them UN should play a role of preventing wars, but in reality those actions have failed.

18. In what way are “anti-terrorism”, “human rights” and “anti-communism” similar?

These three policies are similar in some fields. Three of them were treated as ideologies. Let's begin with “anti-communism”, this ideology was the main goal of Western community during the times of Cold War. Communism was the main evil of the modern world. After the collapse of communism the modern world had to find new enemy that he could fight with. The new goal was to spread human rights in countries that did not obeyed them. After 9/11 the new enemy emerged - terrorism. World resigned to fight for human rights and “anti-terrorism” became the main ideology of modern civilizations. Terrorism seemed to be greater enemy than not respecting human rights in countries ruled by cruel dictators.

That is one similarity of these three policies. They were or are ideologies of modern world in order to justify their actions in foreign policy. But these ideologies have also other characteristic that is common for all of them. They also create constraints for foreign policies of the world's greatest players.

Anti-terrorism today has seriously undermined the discourse on democracy and human rights, particularly in countries outside of the boundaries of Western liberal democracies. Unlike the word anti-communism, which implied the need to defend democracy ,anti-terrorism has no positive goal or constructive direction. Friends and enemies are no longer visible. Now anti-democrats seems to be democracies' best friends. Genuine democrats become democracies' best enemies. Pakistan would be a perfect example here. Before 9/11 it seemed to be one of the main enemies of US. It is ruled by dictator that does not obey human rights. It was unpredictable country with nuclear weapon available. Then it became to be considered as an indispensable ally in the “war against terrorism”. Modern democracies suddenly seemed not to be interested in its home policy. Pakistan has removed every remaining facet of democracy, such as independence of the judiciary and people's rights to organize through political parties. US do not react because Pakistan and president Musharaf (nie wiem czy to się tak pisze) are to important allies in war against terrorism.

The other example could be Chechenya. Before 9/11 Western World argued that citizens there should be granted certain rights and level of autonomy. Then after the N.Y. tragedy no one cares about it because Russia is one of main fighters against terrorism and Chechenya is perceived as a place where Al-Quida 's members may be hiding.

So these ideologies mean also constraints in foreign policy. If we are fighting terrorism then we have to resign from fighting for human rights throughout the world.

19. What was “containment”? Is it an idea of the past?

Containment refers to the foreign policy strategy of the United States in the early years of the Cold War. The policy was first laid out in George F. Kennan 's famous long telegram. It was then made public in 1947 in his anonymous Foreign Affairs article "The Sources of Soviet Conduct," better known as the X Article. Kennan argued that the primary goal of the United States should be to prevent the spread of Communism to non-Communist nations, that is, to "contain" Communism within its borders. The Truman Doctrine aimed at this goal, and containment was one of its key principles. This lead to American support for regimes around the world to block the spread of communism. After the disaster of the Vietnam War Kennan asserted that his ideas had been misinterpreted, and that he never advocated military intervention, merely economic support.

The Truman Doctrine - U.S. President Harry S. Truman made the proclamation in an address to Congress on March 12, 1947 amid the crisis of the Greek civil war (1946-1949). The doctrine was specifically aimed at assisting governments resisting communism. Truman insisted that if Greece and Turkey did not receive the aid that they needed, they would inevitably fall to communism with the result being a domino effect of acceptance of communism throughout the region.

It seems that “containment” is an idea of the past. We do not have communism as main source of threat to modern world. Although there are few countries that are still communist (North Korea ,China ,Cuba) but they do not seem to be great danger ( maybe except North Korea). Nevertheless we can see similarities of US policy in fighting terrorism and fighting communism. US do not also want terrorism to spread around the world.

20: Explain the problem of “nuclear proliferation” from the perspective of major IR theories.

Nuclear proliferation is the spread from nation to nation of nuclear technology, including nuclear power. The declared nuclear powers are US, Russia, Britain, France and China. India and Pakistan have also publicly tested nuclear weapons. Israel is widely believed to posses nuclear weapons, although it has not tested them and refuses to publicly state whether it possess them or not.

The primary focus of anti-proliferation efforts is to maintain control over the specialized materials necessary to build such devices because, this is the most difficult and expensive part of a nuclear weapons program. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a treaty, opened for signature on July 1 1968, to which the majority of states (188) are parties, restricting the possession of nuclear weapons to the US (signed 1968), UK (1968), France (1992), Russia (1968) and People's Republic of China (1992) (the five states which possessed nuclear weapons when the treaty was adopted, which are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.) These 5 NWS (Nuclear Weapons States) agree not to transfer nuclear weapons technology to other states, and the non-NWS state parties agree not to seek to develop nuclear weapons.

Nuclear proliferation from the perspective of IR theories:

• Realism: nuclear proliferation occurs due to the desire of gaining power by particular state. In anarchic international system assumed by realists possessing and being able to spread and control resources like nuclear technology means power and power-seeking causes conflict between states (North Korea, Iraq). Nuclear proliferation within the nation state makes other states less secure.

• Classic Liberalism: nuclear proliferation is a way of maintaining security and peace. Society as a unit has the right to decide upon nuclear proliferation within particular state according to its democratic preferences and the rule of law.

• Internationalism: Society needs to feel secure and increase the likelihood of peace through the possession of nuclear weapon. Nuclear proliferation is the result of an awareness of the needs of other states.

• Idealism: nuclear proliferation increases the collective security and thus the public good. Nuclear proliferation aims at building strategic alliances. However, states may choose to form alliances using collective nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

• Institutionalism: Nuclear proliferation or its avoidance possible only on the basis of agreements and arrangements. Comes as a result of sharing resources and processes policy.

• Complex interdependence: nuclear proliferation or agreement to avoid it is the result of the need of complex relations, more cooperation with other states, which ensure smaller chance for war, therefore i.e. democratic peace created, complex and many-members-alliances (i.e. NPT).

21: How important is that political actors have legitimacy? Are there actors without legitimacy?

Legitimacy can be defined as general acceptance of the regime among the citizens. Legitimacy is a source of obligation to comply with the norms set by governments, and is thus an alternative to coercion as a basis of authority. Legitimacy has to do with rights: whether a government has the right to rule, whether a spokesperson has the right to speak on behalf of the entity s/he is representing. Some form of legitimacy tends to be needed to maintain control. In the legal system, for example, some people obey the laws simply because they believe in the rule of law and the appropriateness of the state making and enforcing the laws.

Importance of legitimacy:

• eases development and economic prosperity

• brings order, coherence of the system and security

• allows for international recognition of the state, government, etc.

• accounts for precondition to acquire social trust

• ensures smaller threat of revolutionary movements and actions

There may be political actors without legitimacy, but usually this situation does not last long. Situations when legitimacy does not occur:

• Pure coercive power requires no legitimacy. Brute force is its own only justification. This could have been seen in the case of colonial rule.

• Tyrannies, autocracies usually do not have true legitimacy.

• Sudden, revolutionary change in the state or system, bringing completely new conditions and rules. Fear of the lack of public support and legitimacy was seen in the immediate aftermath of the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

• In working on resolving various conflicts, one or more groups may not be sufficiently established to have legitimacy. In this case, it is not a question that the group is considered illegitimate; it simply does not have sufficient recognition and legitimacy to negotiate agreements, which impact a wider group.

22: What are the possible explanations of revolutions and terrorism?

Explanations of revolutions:

1. economic failure, i.e. revolutions of 1989 and the general unrest which preceded them during the 1980s have been interpreted as outgrowths of the economic failure of Communism. During the 1970s, the Eastern European Communist states pursued high-risk development strategies that relied on foreign loans to pay for construction of modernized economies. When oil prices rose in 1973 and 1979 and slowed the world economy, the Communist Bloc states could no longer make payments on their debts, and this led to a loss of credit and internal economic problems.

2. rise of alternatives to current ideology i.e. communism. In Poland and Czechoslovakia, for example, alternatives included the so-called "civil society" movement and created local leaders like Poland's Lech Walesa and Czechoslovakia's Vaclav Havel, who stood up to authoritarian rule in the late '70s and early '80s to demand political pluralism and individual freedom. At the same time, states like the former Yugoslav republics followed a contrasting path in which the most successful alternatives involved nationalist figures who reintroduced familiar Balkan political themes.

3. social contest i.e. French Revolution (between the emerging middle class and the old aristocracy).

4. financial crisis within the government i.e. French revolution - this deficit was the result of costly wars of territorial aggression in the 17th and 18th centuries and was worsened by the policy of selling offices, with tax-exempt status, to raise additional revenues.

Revolutions arise from inequalities, numerical or qualitative. The inciting occasions are many; jealousy of those who have wealth and honor, official arrogance, fear of the law or of its abuse, personal rivalries, failure of the middle class to maintain a balance, race antagonism of localities and others. In democracies, revolutions are due mainly to demagogic attacks on wealth, leading the wealthy of combine, and they result in the establishment of an oligarchy or of a tyranny, a 'popular' military chief seizing the power for himself; or sometimes in replacing a moderate by an extreme democracy. In oligarchies they spring from the oppressive conduct of the oligarchy, or from dissensions among the oligarchical body e.g. exclusion of those who think themselves entitled to membership; attraction of the role of demagogue for individual members of the oligarchy; employment of mercenary troops, whose captain seizes power. In aristocracies they arise from the jealousy of those excluded from power, personal ambitions, great inequality of wealth. In these, and in constitutional governments the main cause is the incomplete fusion of the three criteria, wealth, numbers and merit. Under monarchies, injustice and arrogance are the causes of insurrection, or fear, or contempt for incompetence, coupled with ambition. Tyrannies are overthrown by collision with external forces, or by private intrigues in the tyrant's entourage, and generally in the same sort of way as extreme oligarchies or extreme democracies.

Explanations of terrorism:

• Lack of democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law, which is the precondition for many forms of domestic terrorism.

• Failed or week states, which lack the capacity or will to exercise territorial control and maintain a monopoly of violence. This leaves a power vacuum that terrorist organizations may exploit to maintain safe havens, training facilities and bases for launching terrorist operations.

• Rapid modernization in the form of high economic growth had also been found to correlate strongly with the emergence of ideological terrorism, but not with ethno-nationalist terrorism. This may be particularly important in countries where sudden wealth (i.e. from oil) has precipitated a change from tribal to high-tech societies in one generation or less. Modern societies also facilitate terrorism by providing access to rapid transportation and communication, news media, weapons, etc.

• Extremist ideologies of a secular or religious nature.

• Historical antecedents of political violence, civil wars, revolutions, dictatorships.

• Hegemony or inequality of power.

• Illegitimate or corrupt governments frequently give rise to opposition that may turn to terrorist means if other avenues are not seen as realistic options for replacing these regimes with a more credible and legitimate government.

• Powerful external actors upholding illegitimate governments may be seen as an insurmountable obstacle to needed regime change.

• Repression by foreign occupation or by colonial powers has given rise to many national liberation movements that have sought recourse in terrorist tactics, guerilla warfare, etc.

• The experience of discrimination on the basis of ethnic or religious origin.

• Failure or unwillingness by the state to integrate dissident groups or emerging social classes.

• The experience of social injustice, i.e. poverty.

23: What is the relationship between terrorism and guerilla warfare?

Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population. Examples of domestic and international terrorism: the Oklahoma City bombing in the USA (April 19, 1995); Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland (August 15, 1998); the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, USA; the Munich Massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972; and the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. A few governments such as Iraq (before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein), Syria, Pakistan, Libya, the United States, Yemen and the countries that supported the Taliban regime in Afghanistan have been accused of promoting or protecting certain terrorist groups.

Guerrilla is a term to describe combat groups. Guerrilla warfare operates with small, mobile and flexible combat groups called cells, without a front line. Primary contributors to modern theories of guerrilla war include Mao Zedong and Che Guevara. The term was invented in Spain to describe the tactics used to resist the French regime instituted by Napoleon Bonaparte. The Spanish word means "little war". Examples of successful guerrilla warfare include conflicts in Indonesia, Angola, Mozambique and Algeria, and the First Boer War. In many cases, guerrilla tactics allow a small force to hold off a much larger and better equipped enemy for a long time, as in the Second Chechen War and the Second Seminole War.

In centuries of history, many guerrilla movements appeared in Europe to fight foreign occupation forces. The Spanish used it to fight Napoleon in the Peninsula War. In World War II, several guerrilla movements operated in the countries occupied by Nazi Germany. Within the United States, the Vietnam War is commonly thought of as a guerrilla war. Currently, the Basque ETA and Corsican FLNC could be called guerrillas, but the governments prefer to call them terrorists. The Provisonal IRA and various anti-Good Friday Agreement splinter-groups could be called guerrillas but were usually called terrorists.

Relationship between terrorism and guerilla warfare:

• Individuals or groups resort both to terrorism and guerilla warfare when other ways for change, including economics, protest, public appeal, and organized warfare, hold no hope of success.

• Both rely heavily on surprise.

• Both involve mobile individuals and groups and are types of asymmetric warfare.

• Both use low-intensity confrontation. Guerrilla tactics are based on ambush and sabotage, and their ultimate objective is usually to destabilize an authority through long, low-intensity confrontation.

• Guerrillas are often characterized as terrorists by their opponents. Guerrillas are in particular danger of not being recognized as combatants because they are outnumbered and may take off their uniforms to mingle with the local population. Guerrillas are usually classified as unlawful enemy combatants. Terrorists do not use uniforms either.

• Harming civilians. Terrorists actions mainly rely on harming civilians, guerrillas on the other hand in wars against foreign powers do not principally direct their attacks at civilians, as they desire to obtain as much support as possible from the population as part of their tactics. However, civilians are primarily attacked or assassinated as punishment for collaboration or in civil wars, where both guerrilla groups and organized armies have been known to commit atrocities against the civilian population.

• Usually both terrorists and guerillas are treated as independent, disconnected hostile actors, meaning that they are often out of a command structure and unaccountable to their claimed collective cause.

24: What are the major causes of modern wars?

The Causes of Modern Wars:

• The optimism with which leaders begin wars: everyone believes war will be short and they will win it (non-rationalist) i.e. First World War.

• The expectations about behavior of third parties: opportunism and restraint. Predictions about how others will react to possible war always part and parcel of the decision to fight.

• Internal strife or dramatic change (e.g. death of monarch, overthrowing dictatorship), political instability (civil wars). There is a strong relationship between domestic instability and war. The reason is opportunism by outside parties when internal developments muddy previously well-known power calculations. In essence, war is caused by the perception that a state is temporarily weakened and will not be able to respond to challenge (i.e. Iraq, Haiti, Liberia).

• Economic causes. It is not depression that causes war, but periods of economic recovery and relative prosperity, usually because they foster inordinate optimism, but also affect the revenues and expenditure of governments. In periods of decline or depressions, "the mood of governments tends to be cautious or apprehensive".

• Control over resources (i.e. oil supplies)

• Seasonal factors. Wars are usually fought in the spring or in the summer. Though not really a cause of war, the seasons are an influence.

• Measuring relative strength. Warfare is the one convincing way of measuring the distribution of power.

• Ethnic violence (i.e. Kosovo War, Bosnia-Herzegovina)

• Religious basis (i.e. Jihad)

• Fighting terrorism (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq)

Modern wars are essentially low-intensity internal conflicts, and they are lasting longer. The days of set-piece battles between professional soldiers facing off in a field far from town are long gone. Today, wars are fought from apartment windows and in the lanes of villages and suburbs, where distinctions between combatant and non-combatant quickly melt away. Technical (man-made) nature is a main cause of modern and future wars. Scientific and technological progress, industrialization and post-industrial development created, firstly, great demand for resources and redistribution of them, and secondly, huge arsenals of modern means of destruction and fantastic abilities of a modern man to influence through technology (weaponry, computers, communication & propaganda) other men and states. Weapons and dual-use technologies couldn't be dis-invented. Modern technologically supported wars are a natural and unavoidable companion of a scientific and technological progress.

25. Is Huntington wrong or right? http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/clash.html

The Clash (brzdęk, ciserać sie , kolidować)of Civilization. What the global politics is going to look like in a future? What will be the new world looks like? Ideological or economic? Conflict between civilizations will be the last phase of modern world evolution. People have level of identity. Resident of Rome can define himself as Italian, Catholic, Christian, European, Western. Civilizations are dynamic, they rise and fall, divided and merge. The meaning of civilization will increase and there be 7 or8 major civilizations in the future. The differences between the cultures are basic.

1. The differences among civilizations have generated the most prolongated and most violent conflicts.

2. World is becoming smaller place.

3. The processes of economic modernization and social change throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local identities.

4. The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at a peak of power. At the same time, however, and perhaps as a result, a return to the roots phenomenon is occurring among non-Western civilizations.

5. Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.

6. Economic regionalism is increasing. Successful economic regionalism will reinforce civilization-consciousness

People identifies them selves through the enemies “us v. them ”How you can say that sth is white if you don't know what is black.

The clash of civilizations thus occurs at two levels. At the micro- level, adjacent groups along the fault lines between civilizations struggle, often violently, over the control of territory and each other. At the macro-level, states from different civilizations compete for relative military and economic power, struggle over the control of international institutions and third parties, and competitively promote their particular political and religious values.

Hungtington is right in saying that cultures are different and that they fight with each other. We could see this in ancient Rome, in middle ages with the develop of Christianity where the Poland was consider as wall of Christian culture, we can see it today with all this conflicts between western world and Muslimism, like Israel and Palestine, and September 11^th. The question is where all this conflicts lead this time?

Hungtington wrote his book in the middle of 90s from that time it seams like the conflicts are increasing. But this can be also caused by the need of self defined after the 50 years of some order. Countries want to redefine themselves in a new world order.

Why he was wrong? When we look at the world nowadays we see this huge globalization and internationalization and this is an argument against the Hungtinton theory (Magada Lenart mi to powiedziala-przypominam ze za tydzien bedzie pania magister ze Stosunów Miedzynarodowych).

Hungtington does not argue that civilization identities will replace all other identities, that nation states will disappear, that each civilization will become a single coherent political entity, that groups within a civilization will not conflict with and even fight each other.

He just set forth the hypotheses that differences between civilizations are real and important; civilization- consciousness is increasing; conflict between civilizations will supplant ideological and other forms of conflict as the dominant global form of conflict; international relations, historically a game played out within Western civilization, will increasingly be de-Westernized and become a game in which non-Western civilizations are actors and not simply objects; successful political, security and economic international institutions are more likely to develop within civilizations than across civilizations; conflicts between groups in different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilization; violent conflicts between groups in different civilizations are the most likely and most dangerous source of escalation that could lead to global wars; the paramount axis of world politics will be the relations between "the West and the Rest"; the elites in some torn non-Western countries will try to make their countries part of the West, but in most cases face major obstacles to accomplishing this; a central focus of conflict for the immediate future will be between the West and several Islamic- Confucian states.

This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth descriptive hypotheses as to what the future may be like. If these are plausible hypotheses, however, it is necessary to consider their implications for Western policy. These implications should be divided between short-term advantage and long- term accommodation. In the short term it is clearly in the interest of the West to promote greater cooperation and unity within its own civilization, particularly between its European and North American components; to incorporate into the West societies in Eastern Europe and Latin America whose cultures are close to those of the West; to promote and maintain cooperative relations with Russia and Japan; to prevent escalation of local inter-civilization conflicts into major inter-civilization wars; to limit the expansion of the military strength of Confucian and Islamic states; to moderate the reduction of Western military capabilities and maintain military superiority in East and Southwest Asia; to exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states; to support in other civilizations groups sympathetic to Western values and interests; to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests and values and to promote the involvement of non-Western states in those institutions.

In the longer term other measures would be called for. Western civilization is both Western and modern. Non-Western civilizations have attempted to become modern without becoming Western. To date only Japan has fully succeeded in this quest. Non-Western civilizations will continue to attempt to acquire the wealth, technology, skills, machines and weapons that are part of being modern. They will also attempt to reconcile this modernity with their traditional culture and values. Their economic and military strength relative to the West will increase. Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from those of the West. This will require the West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests in relation to these civilizations. It will also, however, require the West to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civilizations and the ways in which people in those civilizations see their interests. It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Western and other civilizations. For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others.

26. Why was Fukuyama wrong when he declared the “end of history”.

What is History according to Fukuyama: history understood as a single, coherent, evolutionary process, when taking into account the experience of all peoples in all times. Liberal democracy may constitute the "end point of mankind's ideological evolution" and the "final form of human government," and as such constituted the "end of history." That is, while earlier forms of government were characterised by grave defects and irrationalities that led to their eventual collapse, liberal democracy was arguably free from such fundamental internal contradictions. Both Hegel and Marx believed that the evolution of human societies was not open-ended, but would end when mankind had achieved a form of society that satisfied its deepest and most fundamental longings. Both thinkers thus posited an "end of history". there would be no further progress in the development of underlying principles and institutions, because all of the really big questions had been settled.

It is hard to understand the Fukuyama because he all the time refers to s.o. and you don't really get what is his opinion and where he argue. The first thing is to understand what the history means? Then we can discus if the liberalism is the final stage of political development. Let say that it is impossible to judge something what is happening now in the history, the expression state: the history will judge if sth was good or bad. For the same reason we are not able to say nowadays if it is sth better then liberalism and if the liberalism will develop in some direction. As we have learnt from the history there is always possibility to change and invent sth new. That is the reason the Fukuyama was wrong when he declared the end of the history.

Fukuyama was wrong because what we observe nowadays is that political systems are moving in a technocratic direction and expert governance. We do not find this system yet in any country, but this it the general trend. (Magda Lenart)

27. How can popular culture be an aspect of international relations?

First we should define what popular culture is. various forms of popular culture including music, film, television, advertising, sports, fashion, toys, magazines and comic books, and the medium in which this message moves, cyberculture.

Movies and television are the great means of showing the world. The culture, customs, way of dressing in one country is presented to the other country. Popular culture is one of these things that can be argument against Hungtington theory. The free flow of movies, music, toys destroys the country and cultural barriers. You can go to Africa and in the middle of nowhere you can find people watching discovery channel. The sport and music are things that get people together. One of the things after the war in Irack was a soccer mach to show some common cultures artifacts.

The famous stars are very often use by politics to obtain people trust. How often we can meet a famous person who is a negotiator for government. People usually have bigger trust in person they know even if they know this person only from TV.

28. What is a “politicization of religion”?

The religion in political area is used in a many ways. The political fundamentalism means: “stick to the rules”, lack of flexibility, being stubborn. The religion in a politic was always from the historical point of view. Even when we look at the Poland during the communism times we see the role that church play in a politic.

The connection between religion and politics has developed into a popular topic during the last few years, especially as it relates to the Islamic faith.

New variety of political religion. The politicization of religion results in the rise of religious

fundamentalisms. Unlike known varieties of political religions, fundamentalist political

Islam is not a secular ideology. Religious fundamentalisms combine religious belief

with political concerns. The ongoing desecularization based on a politicization of religion and resulting in totalitarian neo-absolutisms.

29. Explain the source of political fundamentalism. What types of fundamentalism do you know?

In many ways religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion. The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship.

However, groups described as fundamentalist or which describe themselves in these terms often strongly object to this terminology because of the negative connotations, like intolerance and lack of openness for proof that it carries, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups, which they find objectionable. Based on these well-established connotations, many use the word as a rough equivalent to "idealist" or "purist", usually with implied disapproval; and in this sense the label, fundamentalism or fundamentalist, does not necessarily have religious implications, other than in some cases a metaphorical sense.

Fundamentalism and politics

"Fundamentalism" is a morally charged, emotive term, often used as a term of opprobrium, particularly in combination with other epithets (as in the phrase "Muslim fundamentalists" and "right-wing fundamentalists").

Very often, religious fundamentalists, in all religions, are politically aware. They feel that legal and governmental processes must recognise the way of life they see as prescribed by God and set forth in Scripture. The state must be subservient to God, in their eyes: this, however, is a basic belief of most religions.

Most "Christian" countries went through, or are also going through, a similar stage in their development. The governments of many Muslim countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, are Islamic, and include people with fundamentalist beliefs. More secular politicians are often to be found working in opposition movements in these countries.

Types of Fundamentalizm:

Accualy I didn't find any types, But if we look at the word fundamentalism as a just a word not ideology then we understand it as a negative approach to changes,

(z notatek Agnieszki)

Dogmatic - taking sth for granted at face value, not discussing it, no room for criticism

Enemy concept - mobilizes to protect this community, fear, units the community to fight with enemy, identity

Rejective toward technology - anti-modernizm (modernity brings changes), against the changes.

They know the truth - their truth is the only good one, no need for openees.

Simplicity - offers simpl answers for complicated questions.

Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is a relatively new brand of Protestantism started in America that has attracted a tremendous following, including many fallen away Catholics. How did this popular movement originate? The history of Fundamentalism may be viewed as having three main phases. The first lasted a generation, from the 1890s to the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925. In this period, Fundamentalism emerged as a reaction to liberalizing trends in American Protestantism; it broke off, but never completely, from Evangelicalism, of which it may be considered one wing. In its second phase, it passed from public view, but never actually disappeared or even lost ground. Finally, Fundamentalism came to the nation's attention again around 1970, and it has enjoyed considerable growth.

The Challenge of Fundamentalism maintains that the process of globalization, mostly addressed in terms of the spread of "McWorld," is misleading. There is no globalization when it comes to culture and civilization; on the contrary, the politicization of world religions in an age of crisis of structure and meaning is a source of fragmentation. Culture is a production of meaning, not consumption manners. Resorting to religion for the articulation of dissent results in translating religious beliefs into political convictions, and this book addresses the politicization of religion as religious fundamentalism. The new ideology poses a challenge to the world order of secular states. For non-Western civilizations, it becomes a vehicle for the claim of both de-secularization and de-Westernization. Religious fundamentalism is a global political phenomenon observable in all major world religions, but the fact that only Islam and the West have universal claims explains this book's focus on Islam. Giving Islam a political imprint results in an ideology called "al-Islam al-siyasi," political Islam. This ideology has little to do with the religion or the history of the related civilization, for political Islam is not a religious belief. It is a political ideology which is both anti-Western and anti-secular, and it is an ideology charged with establishing a world order alternative to the prevailing one designed by Western norms and values. Instead of this envisaged world order, however, we are currently encountering de-stabilization effects resulting in disorder. http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/6525/6525.abs.html

CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

Were the September 11 attacks part of a clash between Islam and Western civilization?
Osama bin Laden and his terror network see it that way, but most Western foreign policy experts disagree. Al-Qaeda considers its terrorist campaign against the United States to be part of a war between the ummah—Arabic for the “Muslim community”—and the Christian and Jewish West. But al-Qaeda's extremist, politicized form of Islam represents only one strain within a diverse religion—and a radical one that many Muslims reject as a grotesque distortion of their faith. Many Muslim-majority countries are members of the U.S.-led coalition fighting al-Qaeda. Moreover, al-Qaeda also targets Muslim governments, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, that it sees as godless. Many experts therefore say the September 11 attacks cannot be reduced to a “clash of civilizations.”

What is a “clash of civilizations”?
In an influential 1993 Foreign Affairs article titled “The Clash of Civilizations?” the Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington argued that in the wake of the Cold War, the main pattern of global conflict would probably be cultural, not economic or ideological. Civilizations, in Huntington's thinking, are broad groupings organized around language, history, religion, and self-identification. “In the coming years, the local conflicts most likely to escalate into major wars will be those...along the fault lines between civilizations,” wrote Huntington, who listed eight “major civilizations”—Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and African—that might clash with one another.

Does al-Qaeda think it's engaged in a clash of civilizations?
Yes. Bin Laden openly seeks a clash between Islam and the West. “This battle is not between al-Qaeda and the U.S.,” the al-Qaeda leader said in October 2001. “This is a battle of Muslims against the global crusaders.” From bin Laden's perspective, it is a clash that has been under way for centuries, with the Americans as the latest incarnation of the Christian Crusaders—arrogant Western interlopers out to oppress Muslims. In an October 2001 interview on al-Jazeera, the Arabic satellite news channel, bin Laden talked about the “clash of civilizations” thesis.

Muslims, bin Laden argues, must reverse a series of humiliations that they've endured since the Ottoman Empire, the last Muslim great power, was dismantled after World War I. Al-Qaeda's 1998 declaration of a jihad, or holy war, against “Jews and Crusaders” urges Muslims to attack “the Americans and their allies, civilian and military,” supposedly as a response to U.S. policies that al-Qaeda feels oppress Muslims: the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia; the backing of U.N. sanctions against Iraq; support for repressive Arab regimes; support for Israel; alleged complicity in Russian attacks on Muslims in Chechnya; and interventions in Bosnia, Somalia, and other Muslim regions that bin Laden sees as attempts to spread America's empire. These Western policies, according to al-Qaeda, add up to a “clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims.”

Do all Muslims see things al-Qaeda's way?
No. Most Islamic scholars interpret jihad as a nonviolent quest for justice—a holy struggle rather than a holy war. (Bin Laden is not a credentialed Muslim scholar, and most Muslims do not recognize him as a religious authority.) Moreover, mainstream Islamic teachings prohibit the killing of civilians. Islam has a tradition of religious tolerance and moderate leadership, exemplified by the Muslim caliphate's ninth- and tenth-century rule of Spain and by the pluralism and diversity of the Ottoman Empire. Still, many scholars today worry about the growth of fundamentalism and anti-Americanism in Muslim countries.

Why is anti-Americanism prevalent in many Muslim countries?
For a complicated series of reasons. One key factor, experts say, is that many Muslims live under authoritarian governments lacking democratic institutions that would let citizens openly express grievances and solve problems themselves. Moreover, American support for such repressive regimes as Egypt and Saudi Arabia has sowed widespread bitterness. Many Islamic movements “are anti-Western because the governments they oppose are pro-Western,” writes Shibley Telhami, a University of Maryland specialist in Muslim public opinion. Within the Arab world, U.S. support for Israel is also frequently cited as a source of anti-Americanism. On a deeper level, some experts argue, resentment of the United States is a reaction to America's overwhelming wealth and power, particularly when compared to the economic stagnation and political insignificance of many Muslim states. This disparity leads Islamist movements, which are usually antimodern as well as anti-Western, to blame America for the loss of Islam's past glory.

Is the West waging a war against Islam?
Western leaders insist they are not, and their choice of partners and policies backs this up. Although President Bush did once refer to the U.S. campaign against al-Qaeda as a “crusade”—a comment he hastily retracted—Bush and other Western leaders have repeatedly said that the U.S.-led coalition is waging war against al-Qaeda's brand of global terrorism, not against Islam. “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends,” Bush said shortly after September 11. “Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.”

Moreover, several Western military interventions in the 1990s came to the defense of Muslims—from the 1991 Gulf War, which ended the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, to the ill-fated U.N. peacekeeping mission in Somalia, to NATO's 1999 war to stop the “ethnic cleansing” of Muslims by Christian Serbs in Kosovo. Likewise, the U.S.-led ouster of the Taliban has improved the lives of most Afghans.

Does the United States have Muslim partners in the war on terrorism?
Yes. After the September 11 attacks, such key Muslim states as Egypt, the most populous Arab state; Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's two holiest shrines; Jordan; and Pakistan supported the U.S.-led coalition in its efforts to topple Afghanistan's Taliban rulers and uproot al-Qaeda. In June 2002, Turkey—a NATO member and a reliable U.S. ally for decades—took command of the International Security Assistance Force, the multinational peacekeeping unit in Afghanistan. Other Muslim countries such as Morocco, Malaysia, and Indonesia, which is the most populous Muslim country, have cooperated with U.S. efforts to combat al-Qaeda elsewhere. The United States also provides military and economic aid to many Muslim countries; after Israel, Egypt is the second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid.

Is a clash between Islam and the West imminent?
Most scholars say such a clash of civilizations is unlikely—both because U.S. leaders aren't eager to play into bin Laden's hands and because neither Muslims nor the West are politically unified. The Islamic world is 85 percent non-Arab, and experts say its politics are dominated by self-interested states concerned more with conflicts among themselves than with the West. The long, brutal war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, in which Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and more than a million lives were lost, is hard to reconcile with a picture of Islam as a unified cultural force.

Nor is the West monolithic. Europeans are highly critical of U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding what they see as the Bush administration's unilateralism, disengagement from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and unwarranted drive to invade Iraq.

On all sides, individual states continue to make pragmatic decisions. Moreover, the dividing lines between the West and Islam are increasingly blurred. Through immigration and conversion, Islam is now a growing part of Western societies. An estimated 12 million Muslims live in European Union countries, and between five and seven million Muslims live in the United States. Muslims died in the World Trade Center, and after the attacks the Bush administration and local authorities around the country worked to prevent an anti-Muslim backlash. By 2010, demographers say, Islam will become the second most popular religion in the United States after Christianity.

Q30. It means that we, as a state, are acting officially in the same values(democracy, freedom), but unofficially it's not entirely, it's not entirely like that. Some states might treat some values or their protection as a mean to gain different particular benefits.

Q31Polycentric- there are several centers for international power, several groups of empowered decision - makers in international relations eg: US +China and Asia +Russia +EU+ India =blocks of countries. International order is constructed by multilateral decisions and some kind of agreement reached trough negotiations of powers.

Multipolar- the basis for that is, that international relations are governed by multilateral influences and have special, polarized powers, where agreement is more difficult to be reached. Multipolar, eg. 5 forces: US, EU, Arabic world, Asia, Russia. World is polarized.

Q32State - a political unit, institution, formal territory, people, ability to govern it, citizens with legal background.

political organization of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of government. The state is a form of human association distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, the establishment of order and security; its methods, the laws and their enforcement; its territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries;

A political body; the whole body of people who are united one government, whatever may be the form of the government; a nation

Q34Much of the field of political sociology is defined by a confrontation between state- and society-centered theories of policy making. State-centered theories emphasize the effects of autonomous political actors, institutions, or opportunities on the outcomes of policy- making processes, whereas society-centered approaches focus on the interests and motivations of collective actors in civil society. Research has benefited greatly from the insights generated by both schools, yet current scholarship suggests that the distinction between state and society can be misleading.

1. THE SOCIETY-CENTERED APPROACH

Society-centered theorists consider the social formation the primary and starting object of inquiry in understanding the State. The proper explanatory direction, they argue, is from civil society to the nature of the state and vice-versa. Thus, the analysis of the forms of the capitalist state can only be made when the causal necessity of the emergence and existence of the state, and its organizational apparatus, derives from the nexus of individual relationships (liberal state theory, pluralism) or the nexus of class relationships (Marxian state theory).

1.1 Marx and Engels. In the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859/1935), Marx observes that “forms of state are to be grasped neither from themselves...but rather have their roots in the material conditions of life...”, and that “the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy”. In the Origin of the Family (1884/1972) Engels observes “the state is therefore by no means a power forced on society from without...rather it is a product of society at a certain stage of development …this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it...it the state”. And in the Holy Family (1845), Marx and Engels state that “only political superstition today imagines that social life must be held together by the state, whereas in reality the state is held together by civil life” [cited in McLellan 1977:541, emphasis added].

For Marx and Engels (and for neo-Marxists), the state is an extension of civil society, a mechanism that reproduces the normative social order so that particular, not general, interests are protected and enhanced. Hence to Marx and Engels (and to neo-Marxists) the “state and its bureaucratic organization constitute `parasitic' entities” [Held 1989:39]. In a capitalist society, no matter what level of economic development and what form of state, the particular interests are those of owning capitalist class. The state assures the maintenance of the necessary “general conditions for the reproduction of the wage labor/capital relation which is the heart of bourgeois societies” [Munck 1984:206]. Echoing Marx's dictum, Zeitlin observes “the political form of the bourgeois state, either democratic or authoritarian, is the relatively contingent historical product of specific social struggles between classes and class segments...in determinate circumstances” [1981:141].

While better known for considering the capitalist state an `instrument' of the owning/ruling class, Marx and Engels also held a secondary view of the state which considered the plausibility of relative state autonomy. In his description of the form of the state of the Second French Empire, Marx observed: “in reality, it was the only form of government possible at a time when the bourgeoisie had already lost, and the working class had not yet acquired, the faculty of ruling the nation” [cited in McLellan 1977:541]. Engels also observed that “by way of exception, however, periods occur in which the warring classes balance each other so nearly that the state power, as ostensible mediator, acquires, for the moment, a certain degree of independence of both...(S)uch was the Bonapartism of the First, and still more of the Second, French Empire, which played off the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie against the proletariat...” [1972:160-161]. Marx and Engels are cognizant that capitalist states may assume different and sharply contrasted forms, and that some states may be more autonomous than others, but, they argue, they remain class states.

1.2 The Instrumentalists. While agreeing that the capitalist serves the interests of the owning classes, neo-Marxists differ in their explanations of how the capitalist state accomplishes its tasks. Jessop has aptly observed that there is in Marxian theory “a variety of theoretical perspectives which co-exist in an uneasy and unstable relation” [1982:xii]. ^[2] Instrumentalists [see Mills, 1956; Miliband, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1977; Domhoff, 1983, Useem, 1984] argue that the state is an “instrument for the domination of society” [Miliband 1969:22] that functions on the basis of the conscious intentions and “instrumental exercise of power by people in strategic positions” who either manipulate state politics directly (direct instrumentality) or through the “exercise of pressure on the state” (indirect instrumentality) [Gold et al, 1975].

Instrumentalists assert, however, that the capitalist state, in order to serve the capitalist class, must necessarily be relatively autonomous. “Its relative independence makes it possible for the state to play its class role in an approximately flexible manner. If it really was the simple `instrument' of the `ruling class', it would be fatally inhibited in the performance of its role. Its agents absolutely need a measure of freedom in deciding how best to serve the existing social order.” [Miliband 1977:87].

1.3 The Structuralists. Neo-Marxist structuralists, [see Poulantzas 1969, 1973, 1976, 1978] derive a Marxist theory of the capitalist state from the logic of capitalism, using Althusser's structuralist epistemology. Structuralists argue that the state can not be understood via the behaviorist/empiricist observations of instrumental exercise of power by the ruling class, because the class composition of those running the state apparatuses is of no importance to the nature of the state in capitalist societies. Instead, it is the structure of these societies that make the state serve the capitalist class that is causal significant. Social classes and the state are, according to Poulantzas, objective structures, and their relations must be taken as an objective system of regular connections. Since class relations create the state, the latter is a condensation of class-based relations. And, inasmuch as the state reflects objective power structures, the state cannot be independent; it can only be relatively autonomous, and as such is given the capacity to act independently of individual capitalists, while remaining unavoidably the state of the owning ruling class.

Miliband has stated quite accurately that “it is to (Nicos) Poulantzas [1936-1979] that belongs the credit for the most thorough exploration of the concept of the autonomy of the state; and it was he who coined the formulation which has remained the basis for the most subsequent discussion of the subject, namely the `relative' autonomy of the state” [1983:58[.

2. THE STATE CENTERED APPROACH

State-Centered theorists consider the state as an institution, and its activities the primary and starting point of inquiry. To them, the proper explanatory direction is from the state and its bureaucratic organization to civil society, and not vice-versa. To state-centered theorists the state is at the same time embedded in the structural relations of capitalistic social formation, and an independent organization which has a monopoly on coercive power, and a life and form of its own.

2.1 Max Weber. States, Weber argued, “are compulsory associations claiming control over territories and the people over them” [Skocpol 1985:7]. In conceiving the state as such, Weber (and the neo-Weberians) can postulate that the state may pursue goals and plans that do not reflect the demands of powerful groups or classes. Unlike Marx, Engels and Lenin, Weber did not consider forms of state organization as 'parasitic' and the “direct product of the activities of classes”. The “modern state is not, Weber contended, an effect of capitalism; it preceded and helped promote capitalist development” [Held 1989:41].

2.2 Fred Block. The neo-Weberians, most of whom are identified incorrectly as neo-Marxists^[3],

argue on one hand that states inherently are organizationally autonomous from dominant classes,

and the other that they necessarily function to guarantee capital accumulation and maintain class

domination.

Like Weber, Block [1977a, 1980, 1987] argues that the state is not reducible to class interests and power. “State power is sui generis, not reducible to class power” and “each social formation determines that particular way in which state power will be exercised within that society” [1980:229]. Block introduces the theoretical construct he names `state managers' who, he contends, are individuals not involved in the relations of production and are, therefore, independent from the capitalist class, even if they were proper members of that class before they became state managers. `State managers' are Block's theoretical solution to the problem of `relative state autonomy', which he finds to be “a slightly more sophisticated version of the instrumental view it attacks” [1977:7], because it still reduces, albeit structurally, state power to class power. Since the state managers are independent of and not controlled by the capitalist class, and are responsible for maintaining `business confidence', the reduction of state power to class power implied in the qualification `relative' is inappropriate and unnecessary. Block's state is an autonomous state for itself.

2.3 Theda Skocpol. Skocpol's theoretical work on the state and on state autonomy is a strong defense of the `structural' organization of the state. Like Weber and Block, she also argues that the state can not be reduced to class relations and class struggle; that the state is an independent

organization just like any other private organization with its own internal structure and its own interests. Skocpol criticizes classical Marxist theories (and neo-Marxist structuralists) for assuming that “states are inherently shaped by classes or class struggles and to preserve and expand modes of production” [1985:4], and for making it “virtually impossible even to raise the possibility that fundamental conflicts of interest might arise between the existing dominant class or set of groups on one hand, and the state rulers on the other” [1979:27]. She has observed that “Poulantzas' approach is ultimately very frustrating because he simply posits the `relative autonomy of the capitalist state' as a necessary feature of the capitalist mode of production as such” [1985:33]. The state, she points out, is not seen “as an organization for itself” [1979:27].

More recently she has argued that “states...may formulate and pursue goals that are not simply reflective of the demands of the interests of social groups, classes or societies”. She castigates “virtually all neo-Marxist writers of the state” for having retained “deeply embedded society-centered assumptions” [1985:5-9], and thus ignoring that “important social change is a consequence of autonomous state activity” [Levine 1987:97].

2.4 Sousa Santos. The Portuguese state-centered sociologist has postulated that the Portuguese Estado Nova (1933-1974) was an autonomous state (1984). He claims specifically that: 1) the interests of the hegemonic class co-existed with the interests of the autonomous Estado Novo; 2) the hegemonic agrarian bourgeoisie accepted a tutelage exercised by the bureaucratic machine in the name not of the hegemonic class but of the interests of the autonomous state; 3) from 1926 to 1974 the relations between the agrarian hegemonic class and the state were conditioned by the political predominance of the Estado Novo; 4) the colonial wars in Africa forced the state to change its political economy; 5) the Estado Novo failed because, faced with much concentration of social contradictions, “the organizing matrix of the state reached its limit of flexibility” [1984:8-11]. To Sousa Santos the Estado Novo was an autonomous state for-itself, a power subject, an organization independent of class relations and class struggle. During its forty-one years of existence, the Estado Novo was autonomous and pursued its own goals and interests.

As we can see, to the state-centered theorists surveyed above, as well as to others whose work could not be reviewed in this paper because of the usual limitations of space, the state is the starting point, independent explanatory variable of inquiry.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

Capitalism also called free market economy- economic system dominant in western world since the breakup of feudalism. the development of capitalism was spreaded by the growth of the english cloth industry in 16-18 century. the feature which distinguish capitalism from previous system was the use of the excess of production over consumption to enlarge productive capacity rather than to invest in economically unproductive enterprises. protestant reformation XVI. economic inequality was justified on the grounds that the wealthy were also the virtous. increase in Europe's supply of metals and resulting inflation in prices. Wages didn't rise fast as prices at that period.. early capitalists 1500-1750 enjoyed the benefits from rise of strong national states during mercantilistic era. The policies of national power followed by these states succeded in providing the basis social conditions such as uniform moneary systemsand legal codes. the ideology of classical capitalism - Adam Smith recommended leaving economic decisions to the free play of self-regulating marketforces XVIII. in XIX political liberalism included free trade, sound money-gold currency, balanced budgets, min level of poor relief. world war I - turning point in development of capitalism. After II world war we could obseve interventionism in social life,which improved standard of working class.

Żródło internet i Encyklopedia Britannica

• kapitalizm kupiecki - do XVIII,

• kapitalizm wolnokonkurencyjny(liberalizm) - 1750-1880,

• kapitalizm monopolistyczny 1880-1914;

• początki interwencjonizmu państwa w gosp. 1919-1939;

• interwencjonizm państwowy i społeczna gosp. rynkowa po 45r.

czynniki powstania: nauka, wynalazki, posiadanie bogactw naturalnych, rozwój handlu, kolonializm i imperializm, eksploatacja i wyzysk warstw uboższych, zmiany natury psycholog człowieka - żądza zysku, zróżnicowanie geograf, gosp. i polityczne europy, zjawiska pluralizmu w zachodnioeurop pluralizmie, wpływ etyki protestanckiej.

Znalazłam takie dziwactwo- prezentacje- na poniższy temat na stronie uniwerku z Hawaii

“The Advanced Capitalist State”

1.Warfare and Welfare State

• “Embedded Militarism” in Society

• Pearton: continuous preparation for war

• Enloe: normalizing processes

• Turnbull & Ferguson: naturalizing discourses & inscribed Order on life and landscapes

• Military-Industrial-Bureaucratic-Techno Complex

• Thee: self-sustaining structure

• Marxist: military spending regulates capitalist economy

• others: confluence of interests; bureaucratic coalition

• World War II “Ideological Foundation”

• Expanded state role in industry, science & social relations Expanded citizenship rights to social services

• “Managed Capitalism” Model

• Internally, state mediating role between capital and labor Externally, state responding to economic fluctuations

• “Social contract” of state, capitalist and organized labor

2.Society- & State-Centered Approaches

Society-Centered	* State-Centered
State constrained by powerful actors in society Distorted pluralist tradition of competitive political process “Consultative” public policy Marxist account of instrumental &/or structural Helps explain weak states	Autonomous power of the state vis-à-vis society Self-sustaining bureaucratic apparatus “Corporatist” power-broker Neo-Marxist analysis of state reliance on capitalism Helps explain strong states

3.Changing Global Forces

• Internal-External; Foreign-Domestic distinctions increasingly indistinguishable

• Internationalization of Military-Industrial Complex

• 1970s financial crisis restructuring Welfare State

• Mobile capital in unregulated world market

• Advanced Capitalist Societies' shift priorities

• Less Developed Countries structural adjustments

Creating of international regimes led by ACS

Authoritarianism arise after the I World War on the basis of the crisis and due to radicalization of left&right society. Left-comunists/ right-nationalists. People who support this regime were from all social groups (especially , those who were unsatisfied after war). The biggest popularity in countries where middle class occurred. Rethorics and charisma of leaders caused that people trusted them. People belived that dictators have special mission, so they can even limit political rights& freedoms of society. They belived that leaders will improve economy. Authoritarianism - instead of ideology factor (key factor of totalitarianism) - was based on mentality and personality of leader. According to J.Linz -lack of ideology cause lack of emotional identification with regime.

Jesli ktos ma ochote przeczytac więcej, proszę - info z różnych żródeł

Typically, the leadership (government) of an authoritarian regime is ruled by an elite group that uses repressive means to stay in power. However, unlike totalitarian regimes, there is no desire or ideological justification for the state to control all aspects of a person's life, and the state will generally ignore the actions of an individual unless it is perceived to be directly challenging the state. Totalitarian governments tend to be revolutionary, intent on changing the basic structure of society, while authoritarian ones tend to be conservative.

Authoritarian systems include many of the left and right-leaning military dictatorships characteristic in developing countries, but also former systems in Spain under Franco or in Chile under Pinochet. Elections are manipulated in these systems. In contrast to totalitarian regimes, the main concern of authoritarian systems is to secure power rather than to follow a particular ideology. A watered-down version of pluralism is usually tolerated provided it poses no danger to the government. Mobilization of the population based on a substitute religious-like ideology is uncommon. Indeed, these systems are often prepared to tolerate the existence of a private sphere and even differing ideologies among the population provided that the government is not criticized publicly. Since a single ideology does not exist, the ruling party does not play a major role and is often substituted for other factions based on personal relationships. Provided they are not active opponents of the regime, citizens are subjected to far less suppression and terror than in totalitarian regimes. This is because they are only expected to tolerate the regime rather than support it

European colonialism may not have caused the creation of authoritarian regimes in the developing world, but it did stunt economic and political development and the rise of a middle class society so necessary for the creation of a democratic pluralist state. Often the states after independence in the 1950's and 1960's were led by elite who were dependent and more responsive to the demands of the world economy and the political intrigues of the Cold War than they were to the needs of their own citizens. Often these state degenerated into what have been termed Kleptocracies where the elite increased their wealth at the expense of the country…Zaire, Uganda, Sudan, Angola, even Mexico.

"Authoritarianism" can be traced back to the vestiges of European colonialism at the end of the 19^th century. In this period European countries colonized about 70% of the worlds land mass in their search for raw materials, cheap labor, and markets for European industrial products. In the process of colonialism Europe set up colonial regimes that served the economic, social and political interests of the mother country while ignoring the economic and political development of the colonial country. There were two types of European colonialism formal and informal. Formal Empire or colonialism was when the European mother country would send its own administrators to run the country. Informal empire is when native elite rule in the interests of the European country. Often European countries would rely on a King, Emperor, Shah, Sultan or other elite to do their bidding for them. The elite leaders would be economically linked to the west. In this context these colonial regimes became bastions for raw materials, cheap labor and markets for the Europeans and because of this never went through a commercial revolution of economic modernization that would lead to the creation of a middle class.

By the end of WWII in 1945 and certainly with the advent of the Cold War in 1947, the creation and maintenance of authoritarian regimes in Latin America, Asia and Africa was justified by the need to contain communism on a regional and global scale. Examples of authoritarian regimes were Guatemala after 1954, Cuba in the 1950's under Bautista, Iran under the Shah in 1952, Zaire under Mobutu, the Philippines under Marcos, Indonesia in 1968 under Suharto, South Korea under Syngman Rhee, the entire history of South Vietnam, and Central America from the 1930's to the 1980's.

Also since the late 1980's with the advent of the Deng Xio-ping regime in China communism was reformed from being anti-capitalist to being more pro-capitalist as china has embraced what Chalmers Johnson has described as "soft totalitarianism". In this scheme, communist regimes begin to adopt western capitalism, foreign investment, foreign technology and various economic freedoms without adopting the political freedoms that in the west we see as inseparable from economic freedom. Such a development scheme has been turned Market-Leninist, or "Free-Market Stalinism". The middle class is essential for the successful function and maintenance of democracy and pluralist institutions so necessary for democratic regimes.

31

---