Monthly Archives: February 2016

Same Party, Different Views

Posted on by

Despite being of the same political party, Stalin and Lenin express very different opinions on the Soviet Union’s issues. Stalin’s document “Concerning the Presentation of the National Question” from May 8th 1921 describes the differences of the national questions as given by the Communists in relation to the national question adopted by the leaders of the Second and Two and-a-Half Internationals, Socialists, Social-Democrats, Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and other parties. He explains that they differ in four points, then goes on to explain those points. First, Stalin explains the merging of the National question with the general question of the liberation of the colonies as a whole. Secondly, Stalin determines the vague slogan of “the rights of nations to self-determination” to mean a nation’s right to autocracy. Thirdly, he explains a connection between national and colonial questions of the rule of capital. He explains that in order to “win the war” there is a need to revolutionize enemies. Lastly, Stalin describes the need for equality of nations and not just “national equality of rights”.

Lenin criticizes Stalin’s Presentation of the National Question in his own writings “On the Questions of the Nationalities or of Autonomization” on December 30th of 1922. He declares the question of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics to be the question of autotomizing. He outwardly criticizes Stalin’s want for autonomization and claims it to be “wrong and untimely”. He also questions Stalin’s explanation behind the want for autonomization. Lenin goes on to explain that Stalin did not show enough concern in taking measures to defend those from other nations, and outwardly declares the Soviet’s fatal role to be Stalin and his preoccupation with the administrative aspect and by his rage against social-nationalism.

One common thread in both documents is that both Stalin and Lenin declare imperialism as the common enemy. However, other than having a common enemy, Lenin throughout his writing makes a great effort to show his disagreement with Stalin’s actions and opinions. He even goes as far as questioning Stalin’s understanding of “nationalism”.  Lenin also seems to find Stalin’s actions and explanations behind his actions to be unsound. With that, Stalin’s document provide some insight into his arguably irrational mindset in some areas, as Lenin points out. Lenin sheds light on these issues by asking why Stalin believes autonomy to be the best option, and why then? Also, Lenin’s outward disapproval of Stalin and of his positions and actions acts as a harbinger to Stalin’s abusive years ahead. If the epitome of the Communist party was feeling weary about Stalin, that should have been warning enough for his turbulent years ahead in power.

Standards too Static? Two Perspectives on Rule

Posted on by

The Danger of ExpectationsPhoto Credit:

John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” touched on salient points of contention following the Enlightenment Period, specifically on “the nature and limit of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society” ((On Liberty, 1859)).  One can interpret this as how much restriction these leaders should rule with, and with how these rulers should go about administering these restrictions.

Mill also references the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’ as the source of these problems as well.  On top of that, Mill also mentions that these rulers won’t just act through political authority, which “leaves fewer means for escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself” ((On Liberty, 1859)).  Mill means to explicate the notion that this political rule does not stop at general regulation such as taxes, but has a psychological effect on the masses as well.  To clarify, rulers had rather poor relationships with the public in mid-1850s Europe.  Mill compared rulers to vultures when he said that those under rule had a “perpetual attitude of defence against his beak and claws” ((On Liberty, 1859)), and the oppressed masses their prey.  Mill is trying to give us the perspective that these commoners had little to no communication with their ruler, which not only portrays a bad image of the ruler, but also puts the public at a disadvantage in expressing their needs and interests to those who can influence leaders and rulers.  Mill then poses the question of where the limits of power should be placed in regards to rulers and control over their people.  Mill’s suggestions allude to the idea that these should be concrete and unmoving standards.

Having previously read pieces of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” ((The Prince, 1532))  and agreeing with many of his concepts, I disagree with Mill’s finite standards.  Obviously Machiavelli suggests a much more dynamic system, where regulations and liberties are dependent on present circumstances.  Machiavelli also prescribes a bit of a more lax-but-distanced relationship between ruler and subject, which I find paramount in a monarchy.  You don’t want the people you rule to revolt against you, so you at least have to be somewhat receptive of their plights and opinions.  We see this fluctuation of activity in the European Union, where member states submit a monetary allotment for approval.

I believe liberties and regulations should be ever-changing; with fluctuation it is difficult to get stuck with limits that may not fit the needs of your state or your subjects should a sudden crisis occur.  More importantly this will not set any unrealistic standards for the future of your state, thus allowing you to eliminate any expectations or speculation the public may have of the future governance of their state (another important facet of “The Prince”).  I do not believe that expectations are a truly horrible thing, but in society in regards to government large expectations can sometimes lead to unrest and/or revolt if too many things are kept static.

How would you rule?  Do you think static limits and liberties are more advantageous than dynamic regulations?  Why?

Ideals of Liberty

Posted on by

The Marquis de Condorcet and John Stuart Mill were philosophers concerned with the idea of liberty and governments. Condorcet was a Frenchman writing during the time of the French revolution, undoubtedly inspired by the values of the revolution and the Enlightenment, putting reason above all else and valuing the progression of nations towards equality. He advocated for liberties that resembled the U.S. Bill of Rights, that is freedom of speech and press, abolition of torture, a simpler civil code and ensuring the security of innocent people. ((Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, 1795. http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/sketch.html)) Mill focused his writing on the struggle between liberty and authority and how this progression had changed government forms over time, as well as his views on individual liberties. He thought that human’s needed to have liberty of individual thought, liberty of one’s tastes and pursuits and the liberty to unite with others for a purpose that does not harm other people. ((John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1869. http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/JSMILL-LIB.asp))

Condorcet and Mill have similar views on what liberties individuals are entitled to, mainly focusing on freedom of individual thought and opinion, as well as the fact that they were both known to be advocates for women’s rights, which was unique for men of their time. In 1795, when Condorcet was writing, women and many men did not have access to many of the liberties he discussed and this had not changed substantially in 1869 when Mill was writing in England. Mill was addressing the lack of these issues over seventy years later, implying that most individuals still did not have access to them.

There is still a lot of talk today about inequalities between men and women, with the obvious example being that women make 79 cents for every dollar made by a man. Women have made great strides in equality since Condorcet and Mill were writing but there is still a ways to go. Condorcet says at the beginning of his writing that the “perfectibility of man in indefinite”, do you think we will ever achieve full equality between men and women? ((Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, 1795. http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/sketch.html)) Or between all members of society?

How can “The Communist Manifesto” be connected to present day?

Posted on by

Karl Marx, an extremely influential philosopher and revolutionary, was born in 1818 in Germany. He grew up in a middle-class home, and attended the University of Berlin for four years. Marx moved to Paris in 1843, and wrote about his communist views in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, which was not published until after his death. In Paris, Marx developed a friendship with Friedrich Engels. The two moved to Brussels, but frequently visited Engels’ family in London, where they joined the Communist League. The two were then asked to write a declaration of the beliefs of the Communist party, leading to the publishing of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. [1]

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels argue that the bourgeois oppresses the working class. They are interested in getting rid of bourgeois private property. They argue that while the bourgeois are horrified by the thought of getting rid of private property, private property does not exist for nine-tenths of the population. They go on to state, “you must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois.” [2]

The mention of “nine-tenths of the population” leads me to think of current times, and the situation of the 1% of America. While the numbers are not quite the same, the two situations are similar. Many Americans are upset that 1% of the population hold over a quarter of the wealth of the country, while the rest is split up among the other 99% of the population. As Marx and Engels mention, money and wealth can be used as personal or social power.

How else can The Communist Manifesto be applied to current times and problems? Is it too far of a reach to say that The Communist Manifesto can relate to the situation involving the 1% in America?

[1] Steven, Kreis. “Karl Marx, 1818-1883.” The History Guide. January 30, 2008. http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.HTML.

[2] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in The Communist Manifesto and other Revolutionary Writings, ed. Bob Blaisdell (Mineola, New York: Dover Publicans, 2003), 123-150

Is Capitalism to Blame?

Posted on by

I found it captivating to read The Communist Manifesto Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels shortly after discussing Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Smith advocated for industrialization and capitalism in his work. He believed that as a states’ wealth and productivity grew, class disparities within that state would decrease. Marx and Engels disagreed with this idea. Wealthier, stronger entities dominated over less developed ones for centuries during the time these authors wrote their works. Marx believed that capitalism only extended the potential for this issue. He claims in The Communist Manifesto Party, “Modern bourgeois society, springing from the wreck of feudal society, had no abolished class antagonisms. It has but substituted new classes, new conditions of oppressions, new forms of warfare, for the old.”[1] Rather than restricting class disparities, Marx fully believed that the bourgeois society that rose from capitalism exemplified another dominating, ruthless power.

In my senior seminar for International Studies last semester, we discussed how superior races have dominated over “lesser” peoples since the beginning of time. Whether it was during Christopher Columbus’s reign over the Native Americans beginning towards the end of the fifteenth century or Great Britain’s invasion of India during the eighteenth century, more developed nations have always seen it in their interest to dominate over “lesser” people. Through this domination, these superior nations gained land, territory, and, ultimately, power. Marx would argue that capitalism is completely to blame for this continuous power struggle.

christopher-columbus-631I now pose these questions: Is Marx correct- is capitalism completely to blame for the power struggle that continues to exist today? What are some prominent examples that showcase this divide? How can we combat these struggles? How have First World countries made attempts to understand lesser nations? Or have they only made these issues worse?

Picture from: http://edmethods.com/author/tommaloneup/

[1] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in The Communist Manifesto and other Revolutionary Writings, ed. Bob Blaisdell (Mineola, New York: Dover Publicans, 2003), 126.

New Slaves

Posted on by

Factory work during the Industrial Revolution was an extremely torturous job that gave too little benefits for the workers. Although workers in general were treated poorly, it’s hard to fathom how children were able to endure working everyday in these conditions. In Yorkshire Slavery, Richard Oastler emphasizes the struggles of child laborers and the effect it had on their families. Oastler argues that as a child it is important to travel and learn different trades, but child labor completely disrupts this process. It is observed in a factory that a young boy had been beaten without mercy on his face, cheeks and back for only making a few mistakes ((Oastler, “Yorkshire Slavery”)) . Even slave owners in the West Indies during this time were disturbed to hear the practices forced upon these child laborers ((Oastler, “Yorkshire Slavery”)) . The parents of these children are also filled with guilt for having to put their children through this process. Parents are not able to interact with their children as they only see them in the morning and at night. These children are not able to develop any strong relationships when they are forced to work all the time ((Oastler, “Yorkshire Slavery”)) . Children are usually observed as beacons of energy and life but under these conditions they are seen as the opposite.

Child labor is still a major problem in the world today as seen in countries such as China, India and many other countries. Many of the items we buy today are produced by some form of child labor, yet we are more concerned about the cost rather than how it was made. We all acknowledge child labor is bad, but as consumers we do not necessarily use our wallets to stop this practice

Is it fair to tell China or any other country practicing child labor that they should not use this practice even though it was a strong contributor to making America an economic powerhouse?

A Meeting Almost 1,000 Years In The Making

Posted on by

While not strictly a historical piece, I wanted to take a moment to share an article that I wrote about Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill’s meeting in Cuba this past Friday. It was published in Odyssey Online, but I thought I would share it. The link is pasted below.

http://theodysseyonline.com/dickinson/meeting-almost-1000-years-making/316366

 

 

The Harsh Conditions of an Industrial Worker in Nineteenth Century England

Posted on by

blog post hist 107

The working conditions endured by these workers were absolutely not ideal to any human. These children and adults were subjected to strenuous working hours and horrible conditions in the factory. The factories were without any air conditioning so it was a very heated atmosphere.[i] This caused harsh conditions because each worker was subjected to one position for the duration of their work day. In children, this caused serious growth issues. A child sitting in one place for thirteen hours a day caused the spine to become deformed and bulge out laterally. It also caused children to develop bowed legs due to the stress the pelvis was under when the spine became deformed.[ii] These conditions were not ideal to children but it was necessary for some children to work to help provide for their families.

With working conditions not very appealing to adults or children, factories needed workers and workers needed money to provide for their families. Workers never had the option to demand any increase in pay or demand better working conditions. Factory owners were very strict in the sense that they saw every worker, no matter if it was a child or an adult, as expendable. This was a time period where everyone was looking for secure work so if a worker was going against the management of the factory that person was expendable so management just found another person willing to work with the provided conditions.

[i] The Physical Deterioration of the Textile Worker

[ii] The Physical Deterioration of the Textile Worker

The Victims of Industrialization

Posted on by

The nineteenth century saw an explosion of industrialization which spurred innovation, but had grave consequences for the growing working class. Child labor was rampant and the conditions in factories were detestable. Richard Oastler, a proponent for the ten hour working day, bemoaned the new economic system under which parents had to send their children off to the factory in order to make ends meet. He claimed that children laboring in factories destroyed familial connection as their parents became nothing but a wakeup call and someone to put them to bed after a thirteen hour or longer work day. Child laborers were also subjected to tortures such as vicious whipping for the smallest mistakes. ((Yorkshire Slavery, Richard Oastler)) A medical examiner’s survey of a particular group of textile workers highlighted their deformed appearance and ill health. Their complexions were pale and sickly and they had a notably short stature resulting from long hours standing on the factory floor or stooping to work machines. The tendency for laborers to remain in a sedentary position during their tasks supposedly stunted the development of children, making them shorter with curved spines. ((The Physical Deterioration of Textile Workers))

child-labor

Barefoot children working in a mill

Abhorrent working conditions with little to no regulation pushed many workers to the brink of uprising. H. Heine’s poem “The Silesian Weavers,” about a protest by workers of the same name, claimed the weavers were producing Germany’s funeral shroud as they “[sat] at the spinning wheel, snarling cheerless.” ((The Silesian Weavers, H. Heine)) The Weavers’ protest pushed the King of Prussia to give his people a constitution. To many, such an uprising would be seen as a success, but the economist Karl Marx would consider it an incomplete revolution because the workers remained in their debased position in the aftermath. Marx viewed increased regulation and improved working conditions as nothing more than appeasement which made workers complacent slaves to the capitalist system. The enlightened idea of progress was dominant in many thinkers’ rationales, but what progress looked like often differed. In regard to Marx’s view of progress and the necessary worker revolution, do regulatory policies such as shortened work days and minimum wage significantly improve workers’ lives, or simply keep them in a perpetual state of oppression?

Picture from: https://geopolicraticus.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/child-labor.jpg

Is it Ethical?

Posted on by

The readings for this week were quite upsetting. All of the reading focused on the abuse that people, children in particular experienced during the mid 1800s at the height of the Industrial Revolution. The first text, The Life of the Industrial Worker in the 19th Century-England exposed the harsh circumstances people were working under in factories. The workers are often described as pale and sickly looking due to the immense amount of hours they were working each day. One of the texts mentions that there was a point where people were working seventy one hours a week. The very last text in the first reading talks about how crippled children became so early on in their youth due to the gruesome working conditions they were put under. In the poem called The Silesian Weavers a particular line struck me because of the violent image it implanted in my brain, “who wrenched the last coin from our hand of need, And shot us, screaming like dogs screaming in the street”. This sentence sums up the attitude of the factory owners who did not care about the conditions their workers were subject to. Lastly, Oastler shows the anger and frustration felt by people after witnessing and hearing accounts of abuse from children workers. Oastler recounts one boy by the age of ten who had suffered many injuries already at such a young age that would surely affect his health in the future.  


These texts make me wonder about how such inhumane conditions and treatment of other human beings became acceptable in the first place. Today there are a number of companies that employ child workers who are paid very little and forced to work long hours. Not only child workers, but adults as well in many developing countries are treated poorly, regarding their wages and/or the conditions in which they are expected to work under. Why haven’t these issues been solved, why is it so easy for people to take advantage of others regarding their work? I am currently in a business class and the other day we were talking about business ethics. The question my teacher asked was as follows: Is it right of a U.S. company to support a company (presumably in an underdeveloped nation) who underpays their workers and makes them work under bad conditions if the workers say they are grateful for their work? Where is the line drawn? What if that job is the only way the workers are getting food on the table? Who are we to judge?