Evolution of Populism and La Moral from Modernization Populism refers to the political philosophy

First of all there were social failures and successes between the populist and the progressive. During the progressive era, many lawmakers from state and general level made laws to protect citizens at home and those who are at work. Reforms were made saying that women and children

The onset 20th Century holds two main movements: The Populists and The Progressives. These two parties are similar, but their policies and philosophies hold diversities. The Populists party comprises of farmers and poor whites in the south; they focus on eastern interests i.e. railroads and banks. The Populists also call for government action, to intervene and to create an efficient society which includes a flourishing middle class. The Progressives include educated middle class men and men of universities, they too demanded for reform, but accomplish their goals through legislation and the judicial system. The Progressives focused on reform as well as destroying the Robber Barons. Some Progressives were actually a part of the Populist Party; they weren’t contradictory parties. To simplify the matter The Populist party held picnics in order to present discussions, while the Progressives hold educated and sophisticated men of great esteem who were much more formal.

Throughout the 1880s and 1890s America was going through many changes and many of these were fought by the Populists. Silver being demonetized was another major problem for the Populists and they fought it along with asking for a national government regulated currency as well. The Populist Party also fought against the harsh taxes that were in place at the time in the United States. The biggest concern for many of the Populists was how to handle crop failures and how prices were to be controlled. All in all, the Populist movement was centered on helping out the farmers and improving the ever changing economy.

The Populist Movement ultimately failed to survive because of their desire for inflation and the support for the coinage of silver, as well as the fact that they merged with the Democratic Party to combat the Republicans. The 1896 election undermined agrarian insurgency, and a period of rapidly rising farm prices helped to bring about the dissolution of the Populist Party. Another important factor in the failure of the party was its inability to affect a genuine urban-rural coalition; its program had little appeal for wage earners of the industrial east. Although the populists were not outright socialists, many conservative interests saw the Populists as a threat to the basic economic system of the United States. The Populists’ agenda was

* Populism – This was a popular movement with farmers. Especially among poor farmers that lived in the South.

Due to “…falling agricultural prices and growing economic dependency” (Foner 636) in the mid-nineteenth century, farmers in the South began to face inevitable economic uncertainty. Farmers, both white and black alike, were thrown into poverty due to sharecropping and the fall of the price of cotton, and many faced the fear of losing everything they had due the inability to pay bank loans. Believing that their situation was caused by “…high freight rates…excessive interest rates for loans…and the fiscal policies of the government” (Foner 636), disgruntled farmers hoped to better their lives and conditions through the founding of the Farmers’ Alliance in the 1870s. However, by the 1890s, the Alliance transformed into what became known as the Populist Party. Keeping their roots in mind, the Populists sought to end what they considered political corruption and economic inequality that arose during the Reconstruction. In order to do so, they proposed “…the direct election of U.S. senators, government control of currency, a graduated income tax, a system of low-class public financing…the right of workers to form labor unions…[and a] public ownership of the railroads” (Foner 638). In addition to their propositions, the Populists were considered radical due to their embracement of science and technology, their belief that the

There was a widely accepted notion called populism that had led to an ‘us’ and ‘them’ concept,

Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated

The Populists and Progressive were two major movements that occurred during the outbreaks of the workers union after the civil war. The populists began during the late 1800s and the progressives began during the 1900s. There are many differences between these two movements, but yet both of these movements have many things in common. During this time, farmers united to protect their interests by creating a major political party. This party was known as the Peoples Party, which became known as the Populist Party. Populists drew their strength from rural areas as many Populists tended to mostly be poor and uneducated. They had ideas such as government ownership of major industries. Progressives, also affected by industrialization, began their movements in order to reestablish their society.

1. A permanent union of all working classes; wanted farmer and working to share the same bond.

In the 19th century, liberalism and conservatism were two very different political parties fighting for their version of what South America should become. These two parties had many different views that would ultimately shape the nations into what they are in the modern day. In this triumphant battle between the two parties, South America was at a turning point. Many countries were on the forefront of independence and this meant a chance to make a change in the government these countries had. Conservatives and Liberal beliefs appealed to different types of groups such as classes, races, industries and even gender. Although Conservatives and Liberals had many different views, both parties were fighting for what they thought was the better future for the nations of South America. These parties were very important to the advancement of South America and the stride towards independence.

It is important to stress the role that populism played in creating this conflict, or if left right conflict is deterministic accelerating this conflict. In both Argentina and Brazil it would have been almost impossible to speak of labour, before populism, effecting any change as a movement. At best labour movements has been tolerated by governments, although they had won few battles. The rise of labour was never an independent movement in these countries. (Burns 1986,

Precisely, the term modernization as it is used today has no doubt some bias connotations that is widespread and overly used in western countries like America and Europe, and so many parts of the world to label countries socially democratic and undemocratic, economically well off based mainly on the criterions on which the social process of which development usually is the economic component behind the whole ideology. Based on this philosophy that is widespread all over the world. This theory obviously relates to the expansion of western ideologies and the myths behind the word modernity, capitalism and the underlying effects of this process on the diverse indigenous societies of what is now labelled the Third World. Modernization theory therefore, can be said as the theory that is used to determine and make a conclusion on the modern transformations of the socio-economic and politico development of developing countries. It is a theory that mainly and precisely looks at the crucial internal factors of a particular country. It is also therefore, theoretically assumes that by following the same patterns of production by the western countries, other countries can be able to develop in the same ways so-called modern countries did. It is almost like a term that is framed by the powerful and labelled it on the less powerful without honestly considering some other rich-traditional factors of every country.

This research paper uncovers the study of modernization and how it correlates to political development towards democracy. First, it examines the development and origins of the modernization theory that encompass a number of explanations that connect economic, social and cultural changes with shifts in political systems. Modernization puts forth the idea that economic development will lead to cultural and social changes that transform the political behavior of a country’s citizens that can ultimately lead to democratic governments. Subsequently, the paper moves to the empirical evidence supporting the modernization theory and critiquing the theory’s broader applicability. Some critics would suggest that certain types of economic development could actually destabilize society, rather than progressing the cultural and social components that provide the starting point for democratic societies. Meanwhile, others have advocated that wealth does not explain the emergence of democracy, and that the likelihood that a country remains democratic is higher in richer countries. Finally, it will look into future avenues in research on the correlation between political development and modernization.

Modernization theory sprouts from modernization analysis. It is a theory that is used to explain the process of modernization that a nation goes through as it transitions from a traditional society to a modern one. The development of the theory, in the 1950s, is attributed to several American social scientist. Among them was W. W. Roskow. Many modernization analysts subscribed to Roskow’s thought that developing nations followed five stages of development.: traditional, pre-conditions for take-off, take-off, maturation, and finally, mass production or consumption. This paper will examine the first three stages.