Politics as a Vocation

“One can say that three pre-eminent qualities are decisive for the politician: passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion.
This means passion in the sense of matter-of-factness, of passionate devotion to a 'cause,' to the god or demon who is its overlord. It is not passion in the sense of that inner bearing which my late friend, Georg Simmel, used to designate as 'sterile excitation,' and which was peculiar especially to a certain type of Russian intellectual (by no means all of them!). It is an excitation that plays so great a part with our intellectuals in this carnival we decorate with the proud name of 'revolution.' It is a 'romanticism of the intellectually interesting,' running into emptiness devoid of all feeling of objective responsibility.
To be sure, mere passion, however genuinely felt, is not enough. It does not make a politician, unless passion as devotion to a 'cause' also makes responsibility to this cause the guiding star of action. And for this, a sense of proportion is needed. This is the decisive psychological quality of the politician: his ability to let realities work upon him with inner concentration and calmness. Hence his distance to things and men. 'Lack of distance' per se is one of the deadly sins of every politician. It is one of those qualities the breeding of which will condemn the progeny of our intellectuals to political incapacity. For the problem is simply how can warm passion and a cool sense of proportion be forged together in one and the same soul? Politics is made with the head, not with other parts of the body or soul. And yet devotion to politics, if it is not to be frivolous intellectual play but rather genuinely human conduct, can be born and nourished from passion alone. However, that firm taming of the soul, which distinguishes the passionate politician and differentiates him from the 'sterilely excited' and mere political dilettante, is possible only through habituation to detachment in every sense of the word. The 'strength' of a political 'personality' means, in the first place, the possession of these qualities of passion, responsibility, and proportion.“


What Weber I saying here is that there is 3 things that make a perfect politician: passion, a sense of responsibility and a sense of proportion. He’s saying that not only do they have to have passion but that passion has to be connected with a sense of responsibility towards the cause but all this has to come together with a sense of proportion. He feels that if politics us to be true and honest it has to come from someone who passionate about it.


I chose this passage because it is one of the reasons why I don’t follow or believe in politics. I agree with Weber that in order for politics to be true it has to come from someone who is passionate about what he’s doing and who really is here to help the cause and do what’s in the best interest of the people and that’s not what happens most of the time. I believe that many of today’s politicians main goal is money, they have their motives that they keep behind closed doors and cover it up with making promises to the people that they know they will not come through with.

HW#6 Luxemburg's Essay

“The madness will cease and the bloody demons of hell will vanish only when workers in Germany and France, England and Russia finally awake from their stupor, extend to each other a brotherly hand, and drown out the bestial chorus of imperialist war-mongers and the shrill cry of capitalist hyenas with labor’s old and mighty battle cry: Proletarians of all lands, unite!”

What Luxemburg is saying here is that the workers in Germany, France and Russia should wake up and unite with one another to put an end to the war. I chose this passage of the essay because she is promoting peace and union and degrading war.

1.      Why does Luxemburg believe the wars of 1871 affect the wars in 1914?

Luxemburg says that two lines of development in history led straight to the 1914 wars. One was the period when the national states/modern states were first constituted, from the time of the Bismarckian war against France. And “The war of 1870, which, by the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, threw the French republic into the arms of Russia, split Europe into two opposing camps and opened up a period of insane competitive armament, first piled up the firebrands for the present world conflagration.”

2. How does Luxemburg judge the claims made about "Russian despotism" supported by the SPD?
Luxemburg says “if Russian despotism, stained with the blood of its own people, should be the victor. This danger must be averted, the civilisation and the independence of our people must be safeguarded. Therefore we will carry out what we have always promised: in the hour of danger we will not desert our fatherland. In this we feel that we stand in harmony with the International, which has always recognised the right of every people to its national independence, as we stand in agreement with the International in emphatically denouncing every war of conquest. Actuated by these motives, we vote in favour of the war credits demanded by the Government.”

3. What is the relationship between nationalism and capitalism?

Nationalism is defined as loyalty to one’s nation, patriotism. While capitalism is defined as an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations. So the relationship between both would be that the loyalty that each has for its respective subject. Nationalism deals with loyalty to ones country to promote patriotism while capitalism deals with loyalty to ones business in order to make a profit.

4. Why does Luxemburg believe that the war supports the business interests of steel and the banks?

Luxemburg believes that the war supports the business interests of steel and the banks because the growth and effect of monopolies in the country. “The monopolies have organized the steel and iron industry, the branch of capitalist endeavor most interested in government orders, in militaristic equipment and in imperialistic undertakings (railroad building, the exploitation of mines, etc.)” In addition Europe had the most concentrated banking system in the world.

HW#5 - M

My favorite part of the film is when the serial killer is captured and seeing him plead for his life. I chose this scene because the serial killer is finally exposed and seeing him pleading for his life just like I’m sure his victims pleaded for theirs is ironic and the most satisfying part of the movie. My least favorite part of the movie is the ending. I don’t like the fact that the movie ends without showing the fate of the serial killer.  

1.       Discuss the evolution of police power as it is depicted in Dr. Caligari and M?

There is a big difference in the evolution of police power from Dr. Caligari to M. This difference is seen in the tactics the police’s used in M to try and capture their killer. The police in M used advanced techniques, such as searching for fingerprints, researching previous crime offenders, and doing raids. The police in M were much more sophisticated compared to the police in Dr. Caligari.

2.       Does the killer deserve to die?

Yes he does. The killings of innocent kids is a crime that always pisses me off. I can’t see how someone can kill an innocent little boy or girl for no reason. The serial killer tries to say that he is crazy and the voices in his head made him do it but that is no excuse in my opinion and it also would give future offenders an excuse to say they are crazy to avoid the death penalty.

3.       How does the criminals ability to organize themselves affect their ability to capture Beckert?

The criminals ability to organize themselves and set up a plan to spread people all around the city and watch over children is an effective plan since the serial killer only kills children. That plan was what made it possible for them to capture him.

4.       How would you judge the depiction of Nazis as criminals?

The Nazis are represented as very smart criminals, responsible for performing an act that usually the police would do. Even though they captured the serial killer and turned him in because his killings were having a negative effect on their business and not because it was the right thing to do.

5.       What is the significance of the media in this film?

The significance of the media in the film is basically the significance of the media in real life; which is exposing the public to what is going on in the world. In this case with M the media was responsible for informing the public to serial killings going on by handing out newspapers in the street, this lead to the public being scared and paranoid to send their children to school. They also published the serial killer’s second letter after the police didn’t bring his first letter to light.

HW#4 The Blue Angel

The scene I pick from The Blue Angel is the scene at the cabaret where Lola is performing and Rath is watching her from up in the balcony. As she sings this song about love she continues to look at (a very happy/grinning) Rath. This scene shows the other side of Rath, not the strict professor but the guy falling in love with the same cabaret woman that he punished his students for having pictures of her. This to me is the turning point of the film and the beginning of Rath’s down fall, it also shows that he was really a hypocrite.  

      1. How would you compare Rath/Lola to Siddhartha/Kamala?

Rath and Lola are very similar to Siddhartha and Kamala in the sense of the negative effect that both women had on the men. When Rath got with Lola he went from a respectable professor to a clown with no self respect. While when Siddahartha got with Kamala he picked up bad habits such as drinking and gambling. Both men in a way lost themselves after meeting these women.

2. Is Lola an emancipated woman or "totally impassive?"

In my opinion Lola (the character) is totally impassive; the character she plays is one without emotions, I say this because of her body language and profession in the movie (working in the cabaret), also the fact that she’s with different men in the movie.

3. What is the significance of the clown?

The significance of the clown is to show how low Rath has come to get. The clown basically signifies the lowest point someone can get to.

 
4. How is chaos thematically represented in the film?

Chaos is thematically represented in the film when Rath goes crazy after seeing Lola kissing another man and attempting to strangle her. He is then put in a straightjacket. After being released he goes back to his old class where after dealing with all the humiliation he dies.

5. How would you interpret the overall meaning of the film?

The overall meaning I get from this film is what can happen when you fall in love with the wrong person. Rath went from what seemed to be a very serious/high morals professor to a clown at a cabaret all because he fell in love with the wrong woman. The film shows his self destruction. Another meaning I get from the film is that you can’t be a hypocrite, Rath is a hypocrite because he punished the students for having pictures of Lola but when he goes to the club he ends up falling in love with Lola.

6. Why did I compare Rath to the  Haussmann painting/montage? Would you suggest a better comparison?

You compared Rath to the Haussmann painting/montage because Rath is the perfect example of someone not being able to share the pleasures in the world because of their bookish and scholarly lifestyle. He would act as this disciplinary/strict figure (which he was as a professor) but deep down he had similar fantasies to the same kids he would punish for having pictures of (what became his wife) Lola.