“Is multi-kulti Dead?”

This news article, written in 2010, focuses on the rising number of immigrants in Germany. However, a large number of these immigrants are unable to integrate into mainstream society, and there is a growing anti-immigration trend. Economist Sarrazin published a book criticizing the influx of immigrants and the number of non-German children being born in Germany. He claims that the influx of immigrants is causing Germany to become less advanced biologically, culturally, and professionally. Recent polls found that many Germans favor heavy restrictions on Muslim religious practices, and “a third [of the population] think the country is overrun with foreigners.” Many of the immigrants are not integrated into German society, and Germany could benefit from their professional skills.There are individuals who recognize that Germany is becoming an immigration state, and they are advocating for immigrant integration into German society. Rather than force assimilation or limit immigration, Germany needs to integrate immigrants into their society to reap maximum economic benefits. It is alarming that anti-immigrant feelings are becoming so strong in Germany, particularly because of German’s historical views on German supremacy. Sarrazin paints non-Germans as unintelligent and draining the resources of the German people, which is a dangerous precedent. Racial and ethnic hierarchies create civil unrest and discontent, which is far more destructive than immigrants.

European Common Market (1957)

This reading focuses on negotiations related to a trade union between Belgium, Grance, the German Federal Republic, Italy, Lxembourg, and The Netherlands. However, the U.K. was also interested in joining the trade union. These countries would remove barriers of trade, and would not impose tariffs upon one another, although they would establish a tariff to all external countries. The United States supported this decision, as this union will help to further unite Western Europe, both politically and economically. In addition, this union is a move towards convertible currencies, and the United States hopes this move will expand trade among countries outside of the union.

Non-Aggression Pact and Stalin’s Speech

In 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact that paved the way for WWII. Some of the provisions in the pact included a ban on aggression or violence between the two countries, information dealing with the interests of both countries was to be exchanged, and disputes were to be settled through “friendly exchange …or through the establishment of arbitration commissions.” This pact had benefits for both parties. Stalin recognized that his army was not strong enough to stand up against the German military, and his country was not in the economic position to go to war. Germany was very much prepared for war, and this pact gave Germany clear access to Poland. In addition to the main provisions, possibilities of how to divide land after the war were discussed between both parties. However, this pact was broken on June 22, 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

While Germany went back on the non-aggression pact, the Soviet Union had enough time to build up industrialization, productivity, and properly arm the Red Army. In Stalin’s speech, WWII is presented as an obstacle that was overcome by Soviet Organization and planning. Stalin points out earlier shortcomings, such as the ill-equipped nature of the Red Army during WWI. However, industrialization increased rapidly, and to give an example, five and a half times more coal was produced in 1940 than was produced in 1913. In the speech, Stalin stressed how Soviet organization was able to overcome the challenges of war, and stated capitalism is the root of catastrophic wars. While this speech was given to members of his electorate district, the speech has far ranging messages. Soviet greatness allowed the USSR to overcome the horrors of war, industrialize rapidly, and avoid the capitalism which created the terrible world wars. While the non-aggression treaty was broken in 1941, it allowed for enough time to build up the Soviet economy and army.



Hitler outlines the platform of the National German’s German Workers Party, which eventually becomes the Nazi Party, in a speech delivered to 2,000 people on February 24, 1920. Hitler outlined the goals of his newly renamed party, and true to it’s socialist roots, many points of the platform are extremely socialist. For example, Hitler called for equal rights for all citizens, profit-sharing from large industries, and increases in retirement pensions. In addition, he wanted public education of poor students, as well as maternity welfare centers. The common image of the Nazi Party is restrictive, unyielding, and forceful. When the word “Nazi” is heard, the first association is Auschwitz, and the socialist roots of the party remain undiscussed. However, it is important to note that Hitler calls for these benefits to German citizens, not simply the inhabitants of Germany. He recognizes a clear hierarchy amongst the races, and Aryan is the only race that truly deserves to inhabit Germany. He called for the end of immigration of non-Germans, and the expulsion of non-Germans if food supplies were to run short.

The portions in regards to the superiority of the German race is more in line with the traditional view of Nazism. Hitler’s solution to solving race problems was to expunge non-Germans, which would also cause the available wealth to be distributed more evenly to the superior German race. Upon reflection, it is difficult to accept that an entire nation would be willing to join a party committed to destroying an “inferior people,” but many elements of the party platform remain undiscussed. When an individual is taking home wheelbarrows full of worthless money, the idea of retirement pensions is extremely appealing. While the Jews were not responsible for the terrible peace treaty, the Jews were an easy scapegoat, and the socialist platform was appealing to many Germans. Hitler’s charisma and the turmoil caused by the Treaty of Versailles is often used as the explanation for the rise of Nazism. However, ignoring the socialist platform is disregarding an extremely important part of the popularity of Nazism.


What Makes a Revolution

In Lenin’s What Makes a Revolution, he discussed the differences between the economic and socialist view of a revolutionary. His friend, an economist, discussed revolutionaries in terms of trade unions and mutual aid societies. However, a true revolutionary, in the eyes of Lenin, is far more than a union member. Unions, while they may be illegal, still have certain standards they must uphold. In addition, unions have goals such as improving wages or working conditions, but they do not seek to change to system entirely. Revolutionaries, seek to create radical change, and must operate in secrecy. Revolutionaries are not simply men who are angered by current conditions. Rather, they are men trained in the art, so to speak, of revolutions. They have practice in spreading the revolutionary message, while keeping the organization itself as secretive as possible. Revolutionaries need the support of the working class, although revolutionary leaders are necessary to organize the outrage and make the revolution a success. Choosing specific leaders may seem undemocratic, although Lenin believed establishing a core group of leaders was needed to accomplish the goals of a revolution. A revolutionary may be involved in labor politics, but union organizers are not necessarily revolutionaries. Revolution, not factory work, must be a revolutionary’s full-time occupation. Training is necessary in establishing an effective revolution because outrage needs to be harnessed and exploited in order to affect change. A worker who protests the long working conditions will be appeased by a ten-hour workday. A true revolutionary, however, cannot be appeased by minor changes, and will continue to protest until the system has been dramatically changed.


Challenging the Traditional Roles of Women

The role of middle-class women existed solely in the home, which is seen easily in both Sanford and Beeton’s writings. Both women stress the importance of maintaining the role of a domestic housewife. In fact, alternative roles are not presented in either writings. Beeton managed to craft an entire novel dedicated to teach women how to properly execute their duties as a housewife.However, Emmeline Pankhurst, a militant suffragist, challenged these notions, demanding women gain the right to vote, which opposed the traditional roles placed on women. Those who fought against women’s suffrage argued that women did not participate in life outside the home, so they did not need the right to vote. The world of politics was an old boys club, and women were expected to stay out of the political fray. However, Pankhurst herself was a dramatic challenge to this traditional ideal. She was a politically active militant suffragist, as well as a mother, defying the traditional roles placed upon women. The ideal middle class family she and other feminists challenged contained a well paid, hard working father, happy and healthy children, and a wife in charge of all household operations. However, feminists and suffragists challenged this ideal in the hopes of breaking down the strict gender roles.


The Communist Manifesto

Author: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles.  Marx was a German philosopher, economist, and a revolutionist. Marx published many widely known articles, but some of the most famous include Das Capital, Estranged Labor, and The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marx worked on a radical newspaper as well, and his ideas remain influential and relevant today. Friedrich Engles assisted with the writing of The Communist Manifesto, and he was a social scientist, philosopher, and political theorist. He was good friends with Marx, and worked with Marx in other writings, such as Das Capital. 

Context: The industrial revolution had rapidly changed the structure of the European economy, and the working class lived in squalor conditions, owning next to nothing. The poor living conditions created feelings of discontent, and the socialist and communist movement was quickly gaining momentum.

Language: The Communist Manifesto is a political pamphlet, and is written as such. It was created to appeal to the common people, and was written in language to appeal to the masses.

Audience: The Communist Manifesto was written to the people of Europe, and it was published in English, French, German, Italian, Flemish, and Danish.

Intent: The intention of the document is to incite a rebellion against the capitalist system, while unifying the Communist movement at the same time.

Message: There are numerous themes in The Communist Manifesto, but one of the most important is the development and overthrowing of previous economic and social structures. The feudal aristocracy was a system built upon a hierarchy, although the feudal system was eventually unable to support the needs of the growing population. Therefore, the growing middle class, the bourgeoisie, eventually overthrew the feudal system. However, the system of class hierarchy did not disappear, as it simply created new classes. For a time, the bourgeoisie was able to support the population, although power and money became concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few. Due to this wealth gap, the vast majority of the population lived in terrible conditions, and because of the terrible conditions, the bourgeoisie lost their right to remain the dominant class. An interesting point made by Marx, however, is that the dominant economic system much reach its fullest potential before it can be overthrown. The guilds, for instance, at their maximum production, were unable to supply the population with their growing needs, so the guild system was replaced by manufacturing. According to this logic, the capitalist system would have needed to reach its fullest capacity in order to be overthrown by the communists.  Do you think Marx would be opposed government regulation of industry if it could make way for a worker’s rebellion?



Essay on Population and The Wealth go Nations

Essay on Population, 1798

Author: Thomas Mathus. Malthus was an English cleric and scholar, and was very influential in the fields of demography and political economics. He did not believe society was perfectible, and wrote in opposition to many Enlightened thinkers of his era.

Context-Famine was a fact of everyday life in England, even as agriculture was making major advances in efficiency and increased productions. However, the population continued to rise, and production of food was unable to meet demands.

Language: Slightly more difficult and has a flowery, descriptive tone

Audience: This essay is clearly intended for an intellectual crowd. Malthus is arguing against other philosophers of his era, such as Godwin, and assumes his audience is familiar with their writings.

Intent: Malthus writes to explain that human society cannot be perfected because our desire to reproduce cannot be overcome, so food production will never reach the demands of the population

Message: Humanity cannot be perfected. Unlike animals, humans possess reason, although reason alone cannot allow humans to overcome the instinct to reproduce. Each time food production increases, the population will increase to the point where there is a shortage of food. Humankind will be trapped in a cycle, which prevents the perfection of humankind.

The Wealth of Nations, 1776

Author: Adam Smith, who is also known as “the father of economics.” Smith’s Wealth of Nations is known as the first modern work of economics.

Context: Wealth of Nations was published three months after Thomas Paine’s pamphlet, Common Sense. Smith was writing during the time in which England was experiencing the industrial revolution, and the structure of the economy had changed drastically in a relatively short time period.

Language: The writing style is very clear and explanatory

Audience: The audience has more of an intellectual base, and is targeted towards those who wish to understand the workings of the relatively new economy.

Intent: To explain the division of labor

Message: The division of labor makes production more efficient and cheaper, and even simple items go through numerous stages of production. Due to this division, even poor and frugal individuals who live in a “civilized society” use items that require almost unimaginable amounts of labor.


La Marseillaise and The Cult of the Supreme Being

In The Cult of Supreme Being, Robespierre focused intensely on the correlation between God and revolution. Robespierre’s focus on God discredited the divine right claimed by the French monarchs. While absolutists claimed their title to the throne was granted to the by God, Robespierre claimed the opposite, stating that God did not create kings to “devour the human race.” He did not support many enlightened thinkers of the era,who wished to distance the goals of the revolution from Christianity. Rather, Robespierre legitimizes the revolutionary cause by claiming that God supported freedom and the revolution.

La Marseillaise, on the other hand, has some major differences than The Cult of the Supreme Being. For one, it is not a religiously based document, and it is also a direct call to arms. Robespierre’s document is a religious justification of the revolution, while La Marseillaise implores direct action to be taken. Translated to English, the song cries of revolution, demanding fields to be watered with blood, and that the revolutionaries demand liberty or death. These documents are key revolutionary pieces, although they have different motives. One document is a justification of war, while the other demands action to be taken against the monarchy.