Good Essay About Traditional - The Age-Old Habit Of Subordination (Kings, Emperors, Princes, And So On.);

Is comparative politics a science? Why is it so difficult to create a science of comparative politics?

Compare and contrast have long been used for reflection and analysis not only of everyday life, but also politicians, as well as social phenomena in general.
A comparison is no less ancient than the human mind itself. It allows you to see analogies or contrasts between various phenomena in politics and beyond. Comparing and contrasting in ancient times was used by philosophers and historians. For example, in "Politics" Aristotle devoted much attention to the classification of different types of polity.
We can specificity the subject of comparative politics. On the one hand, comparative politics examines all that is within the scope of political science - from the states and their systems to small groups of citizens, and even individual roles performed by people in politics, which means massive utilization of different information and different scientific methods. On the other hand, the main tool, the main method in this discipline is comparison that is not the exclusive "privilege" of comparative politics. Therefore, comparative politics derives its name from the method, rather than the subject. On this basis, many deny that comparative politics has its own subject specificity, and therefore theory.
Despite all the difficulties to define the role and place of comparative politics in political science can be argued that it acts as an intermediary between the theoretical disciplines (political theory) and descriptive disciplines (political sociology, political psychology, political anthropology, political history).
Can authoritarian rule be legitimate? Why or why not? Should all people live under democracy? What are the possible benefits and potential dangers that result from promoting this goal?
Authoritarianism is usually characterized as a type of regime that occupies an intermediate position between totalitarianism and democracy. However, this characteristic does not indicate the essential features of the phenomenon as a whole, even if we clearly isolate features of totalitarianism and democracy. To understand whether or not can it be legitimate we should define what is legitimacy.
A situation in which people find themselves must obey, and the government is considered to have the right to order, called the legitimacy of power. Using Weber`s definition of authority, we can name 3 types of legitimacy:

charismatic - faith and submission to the authority of some charismatic personality;
rational - submission because of clear, understandable reasons (submission gives benefits).
While in some cases authoritarian regime can obtain legitimacy, usually it is not the case. Authoritarianism usually loses its communication with population (except for its charismatic forms of government) and for this reason - loses the ability to use public support for strengthening the regime. Focusing in public policies only on the narrow interests of the ruling class, authoritarianism uses in its relations with the public methods of patronage and control of its initiatives. Therefore, the authoritarian government is able to provide a forced legitimacy.
Democracy is usually considered as a pinnacle of state development and is the universal value for a dominant number of countries of the world, though it is not universal when it comes to installing democracy in certain counties. Widespread democratic reforms in many countries of the world does not mean trouble-free development of this political phenomenon. Democracy is a fragile system, and if you do not create the appropriate conditions for its maintenance, it will be destroyed. Society expects quick results from the elected government, without regard for the fact that citizens do nothing for the system to work effectively. This problem was typical for Russia as the country embarked on the path of democratic development. Using Russia as an example we can see the next problem – apathy. The first post-soviet democratic years were indeed unstable, with increasing poverty, lack of reform and constant corruption scandals, that eventually led to 1998 financial crisis and caused citizens to disengage from active participation in political life of the country, because they had no rational reasons to participate.
For the democratic development to become reality, citizens should have patience and optimism as they are forced to quickly adapt to the new situation and are forced to wait for the positive results of the reforms. And if some state that tries to establish democracy fails – in might become a failed state or roll back to authoritarian and totalitarian regime, which all cause threat to other countries, as the Iraq and Afghanistan do.
Why was communism unable to provide the benefits that it promised in theory? Are there flaws in this line of thinking, or did those in power misapply its principles?
Communism – a struggle for a perfect social and political order where all people would be equal, private property would not exist and money would not be needed. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Such order can be compared to the Eden garden, while the people cannot be compared to its dwellers. Equality that was the main goal and the main tool of communism could not be achieved because of the evident flaws of a human being. Requirements for the moral level of citizens were based on quelling their own personal interests in the name of interests of others. The feature of the concept of "paradise on earth" – infinite resources, while in objective reality – resources are always insufficient.
The main prerequisites for the transition to communism, according to Lenin, were: socialization of labor and centralization of the means of production. The first means that the creation of the final product is now not the work of one person but a of a society. The second involves the submission of all phases of production to the centralized management.

It was assumed that the "ideal" Communism would have:

No state, because there are no classes and therefore, there is no need to suppress one classes by the other;
No private ownership of the means of production;
Each gets production and goods according to his needs;
No money, because there is no need to obtain surplus value.
Communism was all about the strong state that controlled economy and politics and social relations. While having centralized management makes the solving of urgent problems more successful, in communism it meant totalitarian regime and planned economy, which is highly uneffective and leads to constant deficit of goods. With the political monopoly of the state any social mobility is strictly controlled, therefore people become apathetic and uninterested in results of their work. We can conclude, that there is both a flaw in the line of thinking and in the application of principles, because communism doesn`t take in account human flaws and therefore all the principles cannot be applied correctly.
Why do we have states? Would it be possible for people to live without them? If they disappear in the future, what would replace them?
While state is the attribute of civilization, nowadays state becomes less effective because of the advance of technology. While the authority in the state is held by elected elite (if we are talking about democracies) – these elites are not the once that are the most efficient, but those who managed to get elected, which in return may lead to many problems because of mismanagement. For this reason, I believe, that if for some reason states disappear in future, their place will be taken over by corporations, where the main value will be competence and efficiency, and the authority will belong not to the elected for great speeches, but to the specialists. The state of the future will be highly technocratic.