Monthly Archives: March 2016

Reassessing Socialism

Posted on by

Eduard Bernstein composed “Evolutionary Socialism” as a response to the stigma the “Communist Manifesto” had created, while also addressing the problems he saw with this specific work.  Almost fifty years after the “Communist Manifesto” had been published, Bernstein saw many of Marx’s predictions to be incorrect and out of touch with the changing world.  Bernstein came from modest means as a jewish child growing up in Germany, which perhaps helped lead him against capitalist economics.  He starts off by addressing how the average person does not really understand the ramifications of socialism and would eventually end up repeating some random phrase he heard on the street ((Evolutionary Socialism, 1899)).  This jab at socialism’s integrity leads to Bernstein’s so called ‘reassessment of socialism’.

Bernstein agrees with Marx on the conditions that lead to socialism.  He sees the alienation of the worker from production and the hurtful effects of the boom and bust system.  However, Bernstein believes socialism must take control as a political party rather than Marx’s inevitable call for revolution.  This is the basis for Bernstein’s idea of democratic socialism.  He believed a revolution would be filled with inconsistent views, as the working class at this time had become much more varied in their political and economic means ((Evolutionary Socialism, 1899)) .  An agricultural worker would probably not have the same opinions as a factory worker, which in return could lead to more fighting in the end.

Bernstein also critiques Marx’s idea that a government would be able to manage every worker, business and land holding.  To nationalize the entire state would require a huge government that would need to be filled with high talent for management ((Evolutionary Socialism, 1899)) .  I find Bernstein’s critique on this a little puzzling because he does not actually offer a solution to this problem.

Is England’s motto of fending for yourself a deterrent to socialism?  Do you believe a socialist political party would be more successful than a revolution?  Do you agree that a government would not be able to manage such a complex economy?

 

 

The Battle against Victorian Values

Posted on by

Emmeline Pankhurst, the founder of the “Women’s Social and Political Union,” was an integral contributor to the women’s suffrage movement in Britain. Born in Manchester to politically active parents, Pankhurst was introduced to the suffrage movement at a young age. She subsequently married Richard Pankhurst, a supporter of women’s suffrage who supported her activist work. In her 1913 writing “Militant Suffragist,” Pankhurst asserts that the suffrage movement in England, unlike its counterpart in the United States, had progressed past the state of advocacy into a revolutionary and civil war. ((Emmeline Pankhurst, Militant Suffragist, 1913)) The text was authored in the midst of the WPSU’s energized campaigning. The group condoned destruction of property and even arson as tactics to achieve suffrage, staying true to the title of “militant.” The use of such approaches explains Pankhurst’s self-conceptualization as a soldier rather than simply an activist. Part of her duty as a soldier fighting for liberty was a willingness to die for her cause; Pankhurst states that her group forced the government to accept that “either women are to be killed or women are to have the vote.” Her impassioned writing aimed at converting men to her cause. She beseeched men in the United States specifically to consider whether they would rather kill women they respected than give them equal citizenship. ((Emmeline Pankhurst, Militant Suffragist, 1913))

Emmeline_Pankhurst_in_prison

Pankhurst during her first prison sentence in 1908. She was imprisoned for “obstruction” after attempting to give a document of protest to the Prime Minister.

Pankhurst represented a significant shift away from the glorification of middle class “virtues” prevalent in the Victorian Era. During the nineteenth century, female authors such as Elizabeth Poole Sanford and “Mrs. Beeton” authored self-help works instructing women to be contented with their inferior position and avoid leaving their domestic sphere. Pankhurst’s text was the antithesis to the concept that a woman should live to please her husband, an idea which bred anti-suffragist concerns about a man simply deciding for whom his wife would vote. Victorian middle class values were largely an illusion, only attainable by the wealthy and perpetuated by those it subjugated. Pankhurst aided in the eventually successful fight for women’s suffrage, accounting for the partial destruction of values oppressive to women. In thinking about the dramatic differences between the writings and lives of the two Victorian authors versus Pankhurst, I would ask what major social, cultural, or economic factors may have influenced the divide.

Picture from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Emmeline_Pankhurst_in_prison.jpg

Victorious Victorian ideals?

Posted on by

Samuel Smiles, a Scottish reformer involved in the Chartist movement, declared that individualism leads to success of society. Written in 1882, his book Self-Help inspired progress through rationality, attention to detail, and “patience and perseverance.” ((Samuel Smiles: Self-Help, 1882)) Smiles, a Victorian who promoted Victorian ideals, detested inheritance and rather believed that success should be determined through—or rather achieved by—relentless determination. Victorian ideals practiced in Britain during this time period separated Britain from the rest of the world, notably countries such as France, who dabbled through numerous Revolutions seeking to find the truth to society’s success. It is in these Victorian ideals that success is most possible; thus, Smiles sought to promote the Victorian ideas of self-reliance and self-responsibility. Smiles not only writes to his own people to proudly affirm the integrity of the Victorian model, but also to other countries such as France. Smiles sought to create a prosperous society with Victorian ideals, and thus writes with enthusiastic, inspired fervor. He uses enhanced, passionate language to further engage his audience: people who are searching for the truth. Furthermore, Smiles refutes the assumption that government plays a significant role, or often times the primary role, in the success of society. Smile believes that individualism is the cornerstone of society and therefore will determine the fate of the nation. Thus, all individuals—regardless of skill, appearance, or reputation—have the ability to make a difference in society.

Smiles goes on to say that it’s not only the General of the war or it’s not only the owner of the business that play a significant role in society. ((Samuel Smiles: Self-Help, 1882)) All members of society who work hard to achieve a certain goal or who simply show respect towards others while being humble should be equally as recognized. As Smiles says, the people glorified in the history books should not—and do not—deserve all of the credit. ((Samuel Smiles: Self-Help, 1882)

A society with a focus on individualism should, at least in my honest opinion, be the most successful. Individualism teaches people to act responsibly and rationally, thereby increasing their intellect and increasing their level of maturity. This level of maturity pertains to the honorable traits Smiles sets forth in his passage: respect, humility, inspiration, vigor, among others. These qualities, if practiced by even a few individuals, can be spread to the masses with ease simply because of their nature. They are infectious traits.

I do think that some of Smiles’ ideas have translated to today’s society. While I think we do not do the best job of giving contributors equal credit, and we do rely on government for much of our help, we still practice individualism in a great capacity. Without our determination, without our self-reliance, without our vigor, we would not be living. We would be simply alive.

Have we adopted the ideas of self-help? Did the Victorians do their job—were they effective? Do we admire the contributions of everyone in today’s society, not just the people at the top? And are the Victorian ideas themselves “victorious” (i.e. the most effective at achieving societal success)

Females on the Front: The Evolution of Women’s Rights and Societal Roles

Posted on by

Mrs. John Sandford’s work Woman in her Social and Domestic Character was published in 1833 from Industrial England.  The work is difficult to comprehend as its intent reach out to every wife in the country.  The intent of this work was to inform women of the ways in which they are influenced and who they influence as well as their responsibilities as the familial matriarch.  Sandford’s message comes directly from the text when she wrote “Domestic life is a woman’s sphere, and it is there that she is most usefully as well as most appropriately employed” ((Sandford, Woman in her Social and Domestic Character, 1833)).  The author explicates the thesis of this section by saying women are in charge of the home and are best suited for tasks in and around the household.

I found all of the readings for Monday to be very peculiar; they all are dealing with women and their roles in society, but I can’t tell if they’re advocating for improvement of those rights or accepting what is observed as their natural position because women are perceived as more delicate or well-mannered.  Sandford supports this by writing “Delicacy is, indeed, the point of honour in woman.  And her purity of manner will ensure to her deference…” ((Sandford, Woman in her Social and Domestic Character, 1833)).  This statement draws conclusions to women’s roles in society based on the socially acceptable mannerisms, making them seem weak and vulnerable.

Obviously these traits do not define women today.  With the recent surge in feminist movements and the push for better treatment of women, we have seen some incredible changes in large sectors of our society, specifically in the military.  These preconceived notions of delicate women and roles solely in the the household were shattered not only when Captain Kristen Griest and First Lieutenant Shaye Haver became the first two females in military history graduated Army Ranger School in August 2015 ((Macias, These 2 badass female Army Rangers just made history — here’s the grueling training they endured, 2015)), but also when all combat roles in all military branches opened to women in December 2015 ((Rosenberg, All Combat Roles Now Open to Women, Defense Secretary Says, 2015)).  These two occasions are incredibly momentous in for women’s rights; the dainty female Sandford portrayed is long behind us.

Female Army Rangers

CPT Griest and 1LT Haver

(http://www.businessinsider.com/first-women-to-earn-army-ranger-tab-2015-8)

 

As a commissioning officer into a combat arms branch within the next three months, this will affect me greatly as I will be working with females in a predominantly male environment.  I see this as an opportunity to widen perspectives and opportunities for all soldiers in the Army, regardless of gender.

The questions I pose to our class are:

Are there any other large changes we see on the horizon for women’s rights?

In what other ways do we see women’s potentials limited because of restrictions based on gender in our country?

Smiles’ Contradiction

Posted on by

Samuel Smiles was a firm believer that growth comes from the individual; hard work, perseverance, and application all made an individual strong and knowledgeable. ((Samuel Smiles, Self Help, 1882)) Smiles was a Scottish writer who learned the importance of self reliance from his childhood; as one of eleven children with no father, he learned from his mother the meaning of individual strength. When he was a little older he moved to England where he joined the chartists in fighting for worker’s rights. His writing is said to be some of the most reflective writing of the Victorian era, exemplifying a lot of common identities and ideas from this era.

 

Something very interesting about Smiles’ writing is that he seems to advocate for child labor, saying that schools don’t give the best education. ((Samuel Smiles, Self Help, 1882)) Instead he advocates for students to be “in the workshop, at the loom and the plough, in counting-houses and manufactories”. ((Samuel Smiles, Self Help, 1882)) As a chartist who generally fought for worker’s rights, women’s suffrage, and other very liberal ideals, I found it surprising that he is inferring that children should be kept out of schools and instead should be in workshops. I found it especially surprising because at one point in the excerpt we read from his book he mentions that biographies of other men are especially useful and should be read by individuals. If children are not going to school, how does he expect them to read these biographies? It was a little unsettling that he wasn’t opposed to child labor, but I found that Smiles was a big advocate of capitalism and was even heavily involved in the railway business. A lot of industries at that time (including the railroad industry) relied on child labor.

 
Is Smiles’ position as a railroad tycoon swaying his opinion on child labor and education?

Defining Etiquette

Posted on by

In the nineteenth century as capitalism was established in many developing countries around the world, the middle class grew significantly. People began to have more money and high society and socializing became something that was not just for the aristocracy. Thorstein Veblen discussed this phenomenon in his Theory of the Leisure Class where he wrote that this upper class consumes just for show and as a performance to solidify their social standing. He also briefly mentioned that women were responsible for consuming and demonstrating on their own behalf, but also to show the wealth and stature of their husbands. ((Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899)) While Veblen wrote in 1899, he was clearly observing a phenomenon that was put in place partially by works such as The Book of Household Management by Isabella Beeton. This work outlined what the rules and duties of a woman were in this time, especially with regards to their relationship with their husband and the best and most proper way to run their household.

Isabella Beeton was an English woman, married to a magazine editor and publisher. She began writing by publishing weekly magazine articles for her husband’s publication on cookery and French fiction. She then began writing longer pieces for his “Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine” about the correct etiquette for Victorian society. These pieces were eventually published into a single Book of Household Management, which described how to conduct oneself in a variety of situations from hiring servants to throwing a dinner party. ((Isabella Beeton, The Book of Household Management, 1861)) The book became extremely popular and the name ‘Mrs. Beeton’ became synonymous with a domestic authority. One reason that this book was likely so popular was that many women were entering into the upper middle class society for the first time. The middle class was growing, and many women likely looked for a codified authority on what proper etiquette was so that they would not make any social blunders or embarrass their husbands in social settings. Victorian society was also one with a lot of rules and standards of what was considered acceptable and not, so having this book with the rules written down likely assisted many women in making sure they fully understood what the proper action was in each situation.

Mrs. Beeton’s Book of Household Management is still being published today, and while it is now largely used as a study on Victorian etiquette, are there other similar publications today? Do magazines such as Good Housekeeping, Better Homes and Gardens or the Oprah Magazine perform similar functions as The Book of Household Management? Is social etiquette as clearly defined today as it was in nineteenth century England?

The Soviet Circus Welcomes all Nationalities

Posted on by
280px-Orlova,_Patterson_and_Stolyarov

Pictured: Jimmy, Marion and Martinov

The film Circus, produced by the Soviet Union in 1936, was made in order to propagate the Union’s ideals and acceptance of all nationalities. The main hero, Marion Dixon, is chased out of the United States because of racial intolerance against her black son, Jimmy. Marion stumbles across Fronk Kneishitz, a wealthy German, who offers to take her traveling around the world and conceal the identity of her son in order to avoid persecution. Marion and Fronk Kneishitz end up on tour in Russia, where she soon meets an exemplary Soviet man, Martinov, and falls in love with him. Ludvig, the circus director, has hired Martinov to create an act to be even greater than the exotic Marion. Fronk Kneishitz becomes jealous of Marion’s affection for Martinov, and he threatens to reveal her secret at every turn in order to keep Marion under his influence. Eventually Fronk Kneishitz cannot keep Martinov and Marino apart, and out of jealousy he reveals Jimmy in font of a crowded circus performance, shaming Marion. However, the crowd and Ludvig unexpectedly embrace Jimmy, passing him throughout the crowd to keep him safe from Fronk Kneishitz. As Jimmy gets passed along, he is sung a lullaby by each nationality who holds him, in their native tongue. When Ludvig is returned Jimmy he says to Fronk Kneishitz, “In our country we love all kinds”, announcing that nationality doesn’t define a person in the Soviet Union. ((Circus, Grigori Aleksandrov and Isidor Simkov, 1936)) Martinov, Marion and Jimmy happily unite and the movie closes with a patriotic march in the Red Square proudly waving a banner with Stalin’s face on it.

Circus is uncharacteristic of the majority of Russian and Soviet films that I have seen, in that it has a generally joyous ending. Russian films tend to depict the realities of life and rarely sugarcoat these truths. The film was released in 1936, shortly after Stalin’s Five-year plan, and as a result it was a time of low morale across the nation from harsh conditions and a lack of daily necessities. Circus is an attempt to gloss over the hardships of life and inspire nationalism in the Soviet populace once again. By ignoring the negative aspects of Stalin’s regime, the film is meant to give the impression that Stalin was a well liked and successful leader, when in reality the country is suffering. In Circus, life in the Soviet Union is displayed as so desirable that throughout the film Marion herself undergoes a transformation form foreigner to accepted Soviet woman. This transformation takes place physically, linguistically and socially when she agrees to be in the circus act with Martinov and receive payment in Rubles. ((Circus, Grigori Aleksandrov and Isidor Simkov, 1936)) Marion reaches full soviet potential when she marches with the entire circus crew in all white, which symbolizes the purity of Stalin and supports him and his policies of inclusion of all nationalities.

Life’s a Circus

Posted on by
Theatrical poster for Circus

Theatrical poster for Circus

The 1936 Russian Soviet film, Circus, directed by Grigori Aleksandrov and Isidor Simkov, tells the story of a famous American performer, Marion Dixon, as she flees from the United States after persecution from giving birth to a black child. She goes with a corrupt theatrical agent, Franz von Kneishitz, who looks suspiciously like Adolf Hitler, to Russia where she becomes a circus performer. After falling in love with another performer, Ivan Petrovich Martinov, von Kneishitz becomes jealous and not only prevents her from staying with Petrovich, but actively abuses Marion, despite claiming to love her.

The comedy-musical film is vibrant and silly, but it has serious undertones that are reflected through the characters. Marion’s guilt and shame is clear on her face whenever she’s not on stage. When she’s performing, she puts on a face that she thinks will please the people around her. Marion is constantly worried about the truth of her child coming out that when she has to choose between staying at the circus with Petrovich and leaving with von Kneishitz or else have the truth revealed, she goes even though she will be miserable.

The climax of the film is a final scene when von Kneishitz reveals her child as a product of Marion being a “mistress of a Negro” to the audience of the circus. He calls it wrong and that she should be expelled from society, but the audience just responds with laughter as they take the child from him and pass the boy around to keep him from von Kneishits’ grasp. The director comes up to him and explains that all children are welcome in the Soviet Union, “whether they have white skin, black skin, or red skin.” This is a critique of American society and the racism that exists there, but not in the Soviet Union where race is unimportant. This ties in with our discussions on how soviets viewed nationality as important, but not race because it is a trait that cannot be changed. The final scene is also a blatant message of nationalism, where the people, among them Marion, Petrovich, and the black boy, are marching in a parade to celebrate the glory and equality of the Soviet Union.

Come one, come all

Posted on by

Aleksandrov and Simkov’s 1936 work of “Circus” combines the elements of farce, comedy, vaudeville, and melodrama in order to produce a ubiquitously enjoyable, light-hearted tale of heroism in the face of adversity laced with prominent themes of existing world politics and the Soviet socialist cause. The simple plot revolves mainly around the exploits of a fictitious American circus performer, Marion Dixon, and her engagements in love and peril as she tries to seek sanctuary in the Soviet Union in an attempt to escape the bigoted derision she faces in America at the cause of her being the mother to a black child. The film opens with her running away with the diabolical Franz von Kneishitz, a German theater agent with a visage and ideology blatantly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s, and his assistant, a farcical cane-wielding Charlie Chaplin-esque performer.

Throughout the film, we can clearly see Marion’s avid willingness to transform into a joyful member of the Soviet Union with the utilization of the cannon performance as a metaphor. She begins the performance by singing about how she would desperately like “to get to the sky, but the stars are just too high.” ((Circus, Grigori Aleksandrov and Isidor Simkov, 1936.)) Once she is fired from the canon, she lands on the moon contraption and sings of “knowing no fear, knowing no plight”, essentially paralleling the envisioned view of the socialist utopia, in which every individual would receive equal happiness. Marion continuously dreams of a better life in an unprejudiced Russia, but is constantly thwarted by Kneishitz. He himself is threatened by the Russian circus performers who wish to build an even better cannon, reflecting the intrinsic Soviet desire to modernize, industrialize, and become a dominant world power.

Marion also proceeds to fall in love with a fellow performer, Martynov, who retains the image of the flawless, handsome, and swashbuckling Soviet man. The two play the piano and sing a song glorifying the country: “Our border stretching far and wide / Walk our man, a master of his country / In his heart, and overwhelming pride / Each day is better than the previous one”. ((Ibid.)) Martynov is the antithesis to Kneishitz, who struggles to control Marion while the former strives to free her, as the two face off in a cannon-building competition. This conflict may also be seen as a Soviet disapproval of Hitler’s ideals of Nazi racism and the perfect “Aryan” race. Towards the end of the film, Kneishitz proclaims Marion as a criminal when he reveals her black son to the crowd, whom he expects to denounce her. On the contrary, they gleefully accept her and the child, passing him around while singing a collective lullaby between the hands of many different ethnicities, as a reflection of the socialist national policy of korenizatsiya. In a dazzling scene of synchronized choreography, Marion is surrounded by light, and looks up to Martynov, who stands with blazing torches in his hands upon an immaculate stairway, a scene resembling religious Christ-like imagery of ascension to heaven and paradise. The film concludes with a prideful, militaristic march of the circus performers in uniform that eventually evolves into a procession donning flags of Lenin, Marx, and Stalin, emphasizing the central political message of promoting revolutionary socialist and egalitarian ideals.

The Great Russian Melting Pot

Posted on by

The 1936 Soviet film “Circus” follows Marion Dixon, an American woman who flees to the USSR after giving birth to a biracial child. Once in Russia, Marion becomes a popular circus artist and falls in love with a fellow performer, Petrovich Martynov. The film was laced with comical antics and melodramatic, intertwining romances, but the end blatantly revealed underlying political messages concerning race and nationality, and the power of the Soviet government to inspire and mobilize its population.

The climax of the film occurred when, in a fit of jealousy, the nefarious theatrical agent Franz von Kneishitz interrupted Marion and Petrovich’s attempt at a record breaking stunt. Kneishitz had grabbed Marion’s son and held him up before the crowd declaring her a criminal for being the “mistress of a negro.” ((Circus, Grigori Aleksandrov and Isidor Simkov, 1936.)) To his shock, Kneishitz is met with laughter from the crowd who wrestle the child from his grasp and proceed to cradle him until his mother can be found. After an array of people sing to the child, he is returned to Dixon and the manager of the circus proclaimed “in our country we love absolutely all kids, you may have a kid of any color,” establishing the USSR as morally superior to places like the United States. ((Circus, Grigori Aleksandrov and Isidor Simkov, 1936.)) The scene of racial harmony directly related to the question of nationality that plagued Soviet Russia throughout its existence. A message of tolerance towards those of different ethnicities reinforced the Leninist policy of encouraging ethnic groups to maintain their own culture and customs while being actively socialist components of larger Soviet Russia.

280px-Orlova,_Patterson_and_Stolyarov

Marion with her son and Petrovich

After displaying Soviet supremacy in morality and tolerance, “Circus” displayed the unity and pride of the Soviet citizenry through a closing scene comprised of a pristine march. The parade was headed by Dixon, Martynov, and the circus manager triumphantly holding up Dixon’s son. Flags adorned with portraits of Lenin flew among the immaculate lines of marching Soviets. At the front of one regiment, an orthodox-style icon displaying Stalin’s face was proudly shown, constituting a replacement to the previously dominant Eastern Orthodox faith. The demonstration of Soviet harmony and calculated consistency glorified the ability of the state to mobilize its population, and caused Marion to “see” that the Soviet Union was the paramount nation. ((Circus, Grigori Aleksandrov and Isidor Simkov, 1936.)) When looking at this film in the context of the arguably chaotic Soviet Union of the 1930s, it is intriguing to consider the aims of the film’s creator and how Soviet audiences may have understood the messages presented to them.

Picture from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c5/Orlova,_Patterson_and_Stolyarov.jpg/280px-Orlova,_Patterson_and_Stolyarov.jpg