Monthly Archives: February 2015

Grand Experiment of Social and Cultural Revolution Early Soviet Central Asia

Posted on by

What stood out in Khalid’s article is the thinking and the desired outcomes behind the Soviet Revolution and that of the Russian colonial empire. Russia before the revolution was less concerned with assimilation of the native population. The Russian government like most imperial powers looks at economic gains and has little interest in cultural issues. Russian even went so far as to allow for a measure of autonomy among various central Asian counties under its control. The question I would pose is whether Russia or any of the other major colonial empires valued or at least had a measure of respect for indigenous cultures, or perhaps realized that allowing people to keep that, which defines them their culture unmolested, makes it easier to control and exploit them?

The example of the way in which the socialists after the February Revolution looked at these people is quite different from the tsarist approach to these same peoples. The article mentions the idealistic views of some socialists immediately following the revolution that, national identity would remain in place for these peoples. Within two years, Stalin already determined to subjugate and assimilate the indigenous people. As Khalid points out “Much about the national cultural form had to be transformed if backwardness were to be overcome.” ((Adeeb Khalid, “Backwardness and the Quest for Civilization: Early Soviet Central Asia in Comparative Perspective” Slavic Review 65 no. 2, (2006), p. 238)) Unlike the conquests of colonial empires the goal of the “Soviet project was one of cultural revolution” ((Adeeb Khalid, Backwardness and the Quest for Civilization: Early Soviet Central Asia in Comparative Perspective) Slavic Review 65 no. 2, (2006), p. 238))). It is truly amazing that the socialists considered their view of society and human thinking superior to 6000 years of human history. To say that another culture is backward or not progressive in comparison to one’s own shows the mindset, not one of a revolution for equality, but rather it manifests the latent imperialist thinking permeating even the pragmatic socialists leaders of the revolution. The Soviets “sought nothing less than the remaking of human nature” ((Adeeb Khalid, Backwardness and the Quest for Civilization: Early Soviet Central Asia in Comparative Perspective) Slavic Review 65 no. 2, (2006), p. 239))). The Soviets turned socialism into a religious movement that imposed it unyielding thinking upon the people much the way the conquistadors imposed Christianity on the indigenous people of the America’s. The socialists like all other governments quickly lose touch with their ideological thinking and revert to human nature of man dominating man to his injury.

 

Marx on Estranged Labour

Posted on by

Karl Marx is a German author who is most famous for writing the Communist Manifesto with Fredrick Engels. He was a German who wrote on the final socialist revolution after the industrial revolution began to take off in the mid 19th century. Marx also wrote specifically on the plight of the worker from which he derived his Manifesto. Estranged Labor is essentially a treatise on how the worker is treated in the new industrial society.

Marx begins to talk about how the worker has power over his job as he is specialized into his field, however the better he does his job, the more power he is giving to his bosses. He does this by producing more and more as time goes on. This begins to translate into excess profit as the worker performs his job better and better allowing for the industry to hire more workers at lower wages, and consequently cut those of the original employee.

Marx speaks specifically about workers becoming part of a very objectified system, becoming materials, or resources in the eyes of the industry that they built. Workers during the industrial revolution are objectified like that of the raw materials that are essential for manufacturing.

Marx writes to make the point that the workers are the foundation of the new progressive industrial society, but that they are not revered as the true cogs of the machine. Rather they are replaced like one would replace a broken piece of furniture. The working class which is the quintessential part of the new world order, is objectified and given no rights or privileges as they are under the yoke of Capitalism. Marx advocates that revolution is necessary for the workers to receive what they deserve in a society where the work that they do is revered rather then taken off the assembly line without any appreciation or consideration given to the people who made possible the capitalist engine. Marx advocates that worker’s socialism would be the best system because capitalism is essentially an oppression of the masses with the proletariat caught under the weight of corporations.

Marx ACLAIM

Posted on by

Author: Karl Marx was 26 at the time of publication. Four years before he would publish his most commercially famous work The Communist Manifesto and about twenty years before the publication of das Kapital. Marx was a Trier born (what is now Germany) philosopher and revolutionary. The year before the publication of Estranged Labour, Marx had moved to Paris where he wrote for a radical newspaper. ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx))

Context: Marx is writing towards the end of the industrial revolution. Technology and industry was expanding rapidly, allowing each worker more efficacy. However, this increase in production did not come with more pay or protection.  Marx is writing at a time in which a labors production greatly exceeded his compensation. To quote Marx, “The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates.”

Language: I believe Estranged Labour was originally published in Marx’s native German. More than that, its written in the style that Marx is well known for. While being well written by an obviously well-educated man, its hard to ignore the anger flowing through the writing. Marx’s use of rhetoric seems to be directed at those not as well educated as he. The words he emphasizes are simple, and have strong negative connotations. (ie, greedy, alien, bondage, hostile). Marx’s use of religious language is intended to have the same effect, to the reader it is understandable and relatable.

Audience: As mentioned above, the intended audience of this piece is not expected to have the same education level as Marx. Marx is writing to the workers whom he writes about, or other sympathetic readers. He paints the laborer as a hard worker who’s labor is exploited by the system in which he works.

Intent: Unlike Communist Manifesto this is not a call to arms. It some ways, it is an expository piece. Marx is writing to inform workers that they are being exploited, and to tell them the method of their own exploitation. Marx writes this piece to identify that the system needs to be changed, and to suggest that the proletariat lead that change, however he is not calling for the revolution that he will in just four years.

Message: Capitalism exploits those who sell their labor to the means of production.

 

Karl Marx and Comte de Saint-Simon

Posted on by

Author: Comte de Saint-Simon

– Born October 17th, 1760 in France and died May 19th 1825 in Paris.

– Belonged to a poor aristocratic family, had a bumpy education, and joined the army at 17.

– Aided the Americans in the Revolutionary War.

– Gained wealth due to the Reign of Terror, but quickly became bankrupt and attempted to take his own life.

 

Context:

– Wrote during a very tumultuous time in France’s history, before industrialization.

– Witnessed the hight of the French Revolution, and the rise of Napoleon.

 

Language:

– He often uses a fairly sarcastic tone to mock society and its views.

– He uses casual speech, and attacks certain parties in his essay.

– He has a very jaded view and it is present in his work, most likely caused by the state of his life (see above).

 

Audience:

-He most likely seems to be speaking to his peers, since he does not speak in an explanatory tone, but a casual one.

 

Intent:

-He is trying to convince his peers that something is amiss in society.

-He is trying to show that the economy is broken.

 

Message:

– Laissez-faire, laissez-passer! does not help the common people.

– “Will they bear their misery patiently because statistical calculations prove that in future years they will have food to appease their hunger?”

 

Author:  Karl Marx

– Born May 5th, 1818 in Trier, died March 14th 1883 in London.

– Born into a wealthy middle-class family, was educated at the universities of Bonn and Berlin.

– Moved to France, but was later exiled to England.

-Briefly wrote fiction, as well as nonfiction.

 

Context:

– His views and works were extremely liberal at the time, and he had issues publishing his works.

– Was active during the rise of Communism, and wrote in its favor.

-His works quickly started dramatic changes in Europe (especially after publishing the Communist Manifesto in 1848).

 

Language:

– Can be rather poetic at times, with repetition commonly seen in poems.

– Use of philosophical rhetoric commonly seen in Plato and Socrates’ work.

– Very explanatory, often repeating points.

 

Audience:

– Most likely geared towards a lower demographic (such as laborers), because of the repetition and explanatory tone.

 

Intent:

– To show that Capitalism cheapens the worth of the lower-class worker, by forcing them to produce more and better products with no regard for themselves.

 

Message:

-Laborers are being alienated by their work, and are becoming more barbaric because of this.

 

Socialist Opinions in an Industrial Society

Posted on by

Robert Owen

Author

  • Robert Owen
  • English cotton manufacturer
  • “Utopian” socialist and workers’ rights advocate
  • Headed England’s Revolutionary Trades Union movement in 1830s
  • Worked in America/England

Context

  • Industrial Revolution is booming
  • Working conditions are not good and there are few laws in place to protect them
  • In United States, President Andrew Jackson defunded Second Bank of U.S. on March 28 (much to many peoples’ disapproval)

Language

  • Negative opinion on the flaws of the system
  • Persuasive with extended flowery (yet still understandable) language

Audience

  • Literate upper/middle class
  • Voters, landowners, business owners (people of everyday influence)
  • Great Britain’s people

Intent

  • Explain why the current system is so flawed
  • Incite change in a bloodless revolution

Message

  • Unite as Consolidated Union
  • By holding a strong moral influence, help man reach its full potential outside the evil grasps of the current flawed system

Karl Marx

Author

  • Karl Marx
  • Wealthy middle class
  • When this was published he was working as the editor to a paper in Paris

Context

  • Industrial Revolution
  • Very poor conditions for workers
  • France during the July Monarchy

Language

  • Very philosophical… breaks down each basic element and defines/redefines to reach a certain conclusion
  • Rational
  • Easy to understand and follow

Audience

  • Workers
  • Lower classes of Paris

Intent

  • Reach the workers and convince them of a socialist system where they are not devalued

Message

  • Political economy based on greed and competition
  • Workers are objectified, estranged, and treated poorly in a system based on greed
  • People are alienated from their products by the system which contradicts their nature
  • Private property causes this estrangement

Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon

Author

  • Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon
  • Scientist, businessman, and theorist
  • Writing had more influence after his death

Context

  • France under Napoleon’s constitutional monarchy
  • Industrial rev with poor working conditions and a lot of angry, hungry workers

Language

  • Emotional and persuasive
  • Many questions

Audience

  • Working class and middle class

Intent

  • Offer an opinion against laissez-faire economics

Message

  • Personal and social interests do not always coincide, which is why laissez-faire economics don’t always work
  • Those at the top become corrupted while those at the bottom suffer

Comte De Saint-Simon, The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry

Posted on by

 

Author:(1760-1825), Also known as Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon was a French economist who challenged his nation’s traditional economic composition.  He believed that the economy should be strategically industrialized eather than run it a Laissez-faire manner.  This was one of the earlier writings advocating socialism.  His thinking that the common man was a hard worker demonstrates his positive reflxtion on human nature.

Context:  France had always had a capitalist economic structure.  Comte de Saint-Simon was a rising political figure in France.  He believed that it was more beneficial to society to fit the needs of the working class rather than the wealthy or “idle” class.  He felt that through an enlightened industrial class, products could be raised to fit the needs of the poor.  

Language: Comte de Saint-Simon uses a persuasive tone that is design to appeal to the reader’s sense of emotion.  He uses words that attempt to convice the audience that people should be hard workers dedicated to the betterment of society rather than their own interests.

Audience:  Saint-Simon is addressing the common people of France.  Wants to convince the majority of society that his new economic system is better than the old Laissez-fair system.  He realizes that the wealthiest class will not support his system so he does not attempt to reach them.  In fact, he even blames their own greed for the flaws in French society.

Intent:  The essay is intended to create support for his alternative to France’s existing economic structure.  He intends to spread his belief in the common man’s hardworking nature to the middle class in French society.  He believes this composition as opposed to the existing capitalist structure would raise the standard of living for society.  Likewise, he realizes that if his political system is implemented, he will likely be viewed as the face of French economics.

Message:  The message of the essay is that society be tailored around the working man.  He asserts that the working class is the cornerstone of the economy, however, the elite, or idle class, benefits the most from it.  He advocates an economy that is based around virtues rather than the cut-throat nature of capitalism and he believes that it would make society better as a whole.

 

 

Zamyatin’s We

Posted on by

Yevgeny Zamyatin’s Dystopian Future novel We, is one of the greatest works of science fiction. We, is remarkable for a number of reasons. The first being that it draws so much from Zamyatin’s own experiences such as his naming of the auditorium. Auditorium-112 was his cell number from his time in jail. The book is a commentary about the new socialist movements in Russia brought to the extremes in the One State. D-503 the narrator, and the main protagonist is a faithful follower of the Benefactor, or the leader of the One State. D-503 believes in the socialism that the One State preaches to all of it’s citizens, however as in all Dytopian novels he has a major change of heart when he meets the beautiful I-330.

I-330 is a women who does not fit any of the accepted social norms of the One State. She smokes, drinks, and wears different clothes, but most importantly she does not believe in the complete socialism that the One State enforces. She is the first person that D-503 meets who has true ideas about individuality, and personal freedoms. D-503 soon discovers that she has a true soul, and almost follows her to the end before he figures out that she is only using him to get to the space-ship.

I-330 could be seen as a savior figure, or a Christ like figure. She like Christ, preaches something completely new and different from the acceptable societal norms. We draws many parallels with the Old Testament, and the Genesis story because of the process of creation of the One State. Zamyatin uses these parallels as a way to show his displeasure at the tearing down of the Orthodox Church, and instead being replaced with icons of Socialism, and Communism in the new Soviet Union.

We not only functions as a true political commentary, but also as one of the first Dystopian novels to be written. We has been hearkened back to throughout the 20th century as the book that started the genera of the futuristic novel with a cataclysmic future, often as a result of humanities own mistakes.

Comte De Saint-Simon

Posted on by

ACLAIM METHOD

Author: Author’s name is Comte de Saint-Simon.  Saint-Simon is considered to be a French social theorist (Comte de Saint-Simon 1).  He was not in support of a Laissez-faire economy.  Instead, Saint-Simon wanted “an industrialized state directed by science,” (Comte de Saint-Simon 1).  Furthermore, Saint-Simon wanted industrialists to become enlightened and after their enlightenment, for he felt that they could help the poor.  He also fought in the American Revolution.

Context: The article does not say when exactly it was written, but on Encyclopedia Britannica they make mention of many of his works.  A few of his successful works were in 1803, 1814, and  1816-18.  It claims that his work in 1803 spoke to the importance of science, which this piece does. ((Encyclopedia Britannica, Henri de Saint-Simon)).

Language: Saint-Simon seemed to be challenging the way Europe currently stood economically when he wrote this piece.  The tone of his voice could be characterized as frustrated, for he was not happy with the way Europe continued to use this Laissez-faire attitude.

Audience: He claims that Europe relies on this Laissez-faire attitude and that it is considered to be “the inevitable solution,” (Comte de Saint-Simon 2).  Saint-Simon disagreed with this point and wants Europe to change their ways.  Due to the fact that St. Simon disagreed with this Laissez-faire mentality and constantly mentioned “honest and hard-working men,” (Comte de Saint-Simon 2) as “innumerable victims,” (Comte de Saint- Simon 2) it seems as though Saint-Simon was speaking to the masses, as he wanted them to change their line of thinking and stop going along with the Laissez-faire attitude.

Intent: As stated above, it seems that Saint-Simon’s intent was to encourage the masses to look around and see how they were being manipulated by the Laissez-faire economy and his piece showed a way in which they could improve the European economy.

Message: Laissez-faire is defined as, “policy of minimum governmental interference in the economic affairs of individuals and society,” ((Encyclopedia Britannica, laissez-faire)).  However, while many Europeans found this to be “inevitable solution,” Saint-Simon disagreed and stated that a Laissez-fair economy created a “struggle to the death,” (Comte de Saint-Simon 2) mentality amongst Europeans.  Furthermore, by creating this mentality, Saint-Simon claimed that while some individuals may be successful, “the price is the complete ruin of innumerable victims.”  In fact, because many working men become “innumerable victims,” Saint-Simon claimed that this caused people to go to the endth measure, for “more than honesty and hard work are needed,” (Comte de Saint-Simon 2).  Saint-Simon concludes that when working men see that hard work does not get enough done, they resort to deceitful tactics and become “lost to humanity,” (Comte de Saint- Simon 2).  Therefore, because working men, seeing that there hard-work was useless, turn to drastic measures and lose their humanity.  This, Saint-Simon argued, is a major problem occurring in Europe and will only be fixed if the Laissez-faire economy is done away with.

His solution to this, was, as the introduction stated, “an industrialized state directed by science, and an enlightened class of industrialists to address the needs of the poor,” (Comte de Saint-Simon 1).  While this solution had flaws, for Saint-Simon acknowledges these very flaws in his introduction, he believed that a state which was directed by science could not be any more flawed than a Laissez-faire economy, which continuously hurt the humanity of Europe and brought chaos to Europe.

 

*Once again, I had trouble with footnoting.  Below are the sources I used for the Context section and Message section.*

“Henri de Saint-Simon”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.       Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 05 Feb. 2015 (context section)

“laissez-faire”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 05 Feb. 2015. (message section)

Is the One State Practical?

Posted on by

Yevgeny Zamyatin’s “We” is an iconic example of a dystopian society that is threatened by individuality.  The One State and its inhabitants were a supposed perfect population who had found happiness through conformity and rationality.  The citizens of the One State were kept under the watchful eye of the Benefactor as well as his secret police force, the Guardians.  In order to eliminate individuality, people were given numbers instead of names (D-503 and I-330), as well as a large sum of rules and regulations to abide by throughout their lives.  From dawn to dusk, and even into the night, the people of the One State were told when to wake, when to sleep, when to eat and when to take breaks.  Social interactions, even how to conduct one’s sex life, were all regulated by the Benefactor.  D-503 was the submissive One State citizen turned hesitant revolutionary and ultimately returned to mindless member of the One State, and although he was the main character of the novel, my interest lies in the Benefactor and his view of how society should function.

According to the Benefactor, the population before becoming the One State “wanted someone, anyone, to tell them once and for all what happiness [was].”  People wanted a paradise where there was no love, pity, or desire.  A society where everyone is healthy, works efficiently, and believes in the vision of the One State is required to make this a reality.  The ideology of the Benefactor is exceptionally clear and in my opinion would in theory work in a small scale system, however implementing a system like the One State on a large scale is impossible.  Love, pity, and desire are all fundamental pieces of human emotion that may be able to be controlled for a small few, however with a population as large as the One State, a system like that does not function.  When the quantity of people living together is that great, the same effect arises as did in the Russian Revolution of 1917.  The proximity of people to one another encourages the spreading of ideas, which is exactly what occurred in Zamyatin’s “We”.  After reading the novel, I was left with the question: after seeing countries fail to achieve perfect communist systems, on what scale would a system like the One State be a practical solution to human unhappiness and individuality?

The Guard

Posted on by

One of the most controversial characters from Zamyatin’s “We” is, probably, the Guard, called “S”.

While reading the first half of the book, I just did’t understand what his beliefs and purposes were.  He was a Guard, the basis of the State, he was a “spy”, as Guards were called in the beginning of the book, who’s work was mostly about finding individuals who turned to the “wrong” path and either help them to return back to “normal” life or to make them disappear for the good of the whole society.

He was always following the main character, D-503. At least D felt like this. S watched him, looked into his notes, noticed his strange behaviors and making him feel scared on the one hand. But on the other he was somehow connected to this strange and unknown (at least in the beginning) woman, I-330. He also “forgave” D-503 when he mistakenly tried to save the woman which stopped the march, he behaved as if he believed that D-503 wanted to catch that woman, not to help her. But he, of course, knew where that action came from and why D did that.

I was not sure about this character till the very moment when D-503 decided to go and tell everything about him and MEPHI. Even when they were there, in S’ office, it was not clear for me what’s going to happen. He knew everything D was telling him, he even helped him to find the words to tell everything. It was possible both if he was involved in this “criminal” activities and if he was just watching D-503’s life, following him everywhere.

This character was necessary in the book to show that even the most important parts of the mechanism – the Guards of the State – could go wrong. But at the same time, as “We” ends with the small victory of the regime, it’s made to show that certain people, even very influential, can’t break the new, ideal world, created for everybody’s happiness. That even in such case it will resist and protect the ones who realized their mistakes or didn’t make them at all (which, from my point of view, was the important idea of this book, that’s why we see this kind of ending).