Category Archives: HIST107-Archive

Freud’s Weltanschauung

Posted on by

Sigmund Freud, known to college students everywhere for his ability to trace all human activity back to sex, published “Civilization and Die Weltanschauung” in 1918, near the end of World War I. While Freud never explicitly mentioned WWI in the excerpt discussed here, he did state that man’s natural inclination to aggression is one of the greatest impediments to civilization. The struggle between a number of contrasting factors, including the struggle between the instinct for life and the instinct for destruction (aggression) forms the evolution of human civilization, according to Freud.

Considering the time in which Freud wrote, and his references to Marxism, it seems impossible that Freud could have written on the topic of aggression without WWI influencing his thinking and writing to some extent. WWI provided a perfect example of the instinct for aggression (an unnecessary war and unnecessary loss of life) alongside an instinct for life (soldiers fighting to preserve their own lives and those of their countrymen and women). Freud also stated that the superiority of reason and intellect over other cultural forces, especially religion, provided the best hope for the future of civilization. He compared religion to neuroticism of the mind and saw it as an irrational, dangerous force. Whereas religion is divisive, in Freud’s mind, reason is unifying.

The early twentieth century was a time of great change, crisis, and rivalry in Europe. Religion and reason, life and aggression–these dichotomies explained die Weltanschauung of the time for Sigmund Freud.

Lenin, What is to be Done

Posted on by

Lenin asserted five points regarding what a successful revolution needs. Firstly, he stated that no movement could succeed without “a stable organization of leaders to maintain continuity.” Secondly, that revolutionary organization becomes more important “as the masses are spontaneously drawn into the struggle,” which basically means that the larger the movement is, the more cohesive it must be. Thirdly, that the revolutionary organization must “consist chiefly of persons engaged in revolutionary activities as a profession.” Fourthly, that in countries with autocratic governments, the revolutionary organization would be harder to catch if it restricted people “who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police.” Fifthly, that if the revolutionaries “professionally trained in the art of combating the political police” were restricted, a larger amount and a wider variety of people would support the revolution.

What is to be Done?

Posted on by

In Vladimir Lenin’s What is to be Done?, he articulated his views regarding the composition and organizational structure of the SocialDemocratic Party. He believed that a proper revolution required a small, tightly knit, highly select, and politically well-versed group of individuals at the top to lead the party in the manner they saw most fit. He argued that a true revolutionary is somebody whose profession is that of a revolutionary. This true revolutionary is somebody who can commit their wholehearted time, energy, and passion to the cause, without being simultaneously hampered by the responsibilities of a “regular” job. Lenin asserted that, as the movement gained momentum and increased participation, the need for leadership was evermore present because certain factions may splinter off. He also noted that this group of “true revolutionaries” would be capable of thwarting the opposition’s attempts to undermine the cause because they have been “professionally trained in the art of combating police.” He criticized the Social Democrats who lumped the political struggle in with the “economic struggle against the employers and the government.” He viewed these two movements as important, yet distinct. Lenin believed that the majority of the labor force consisted of people who were uneducated and intellectually incapable of devising, organizing, and implementing the party’s strategic vision. He proposed that a “dozen” experienced revolutionaries should formulate initiatives that allow the other organizations intended for a wide membership to grow and prosper, thus accomplishing the party’s overall goals.

Revolutionaries

Posted on by

Revolutionaries are those who stand up for what they believe in and fight for their political rights and beliefs. They must be held to complete secrecy. This secrecy allows for further planning and for ideas to progress without prevention. While reading What is to be Done, 1902 by Lenin, He establishes that revolutionaries are an essential part of forming the revolution. During this, he greatly discusses how he disagrees in every aspect with the economist’s perspective. Lenin believed that there are a list of standards that must be met in order for there to be a true revolution. These rules and standards enforce structure as well as leaders guidance. These leaders will help set the rules and regulations. Lenin believed that these revolutionaries should be giving their full attention to this revolution. This revolution should be their profession. He believed in no distractions.Lenin wanted as many organizations as possible to get involved but not to confuse the idea of a revolution with other illegal activities such as readings that were not supposed to be read. Lenin explains that those who are not willing to put in the effort and fight for what they believe in are not revolutionaries.

Lenin – Mouthpiece for the Future

Posted on by

Vladmir Lenin, a Russian Communist and revolutionary, was one of the most crucial, yet controversial, individuals of the twentieth century. Despite being born into a wealthy middle class family, he became interested in socialism and communism after Russian officials executed his brother in 1887.[1] Lenin wrote the text, What is to Be Done, just before the split of his party, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.[2] In his writing, Lenin depicted the type of revolutionary and system of organization that he wanted most and thought would work the best. He argued that the list of potential revolutionaries should be as wide and public as possible, that is, inclusive not solely of the working class, but others that wanted to join the cause as well. Lenin envisioned having revolutionaries based in multiple sectors of society. Furthermore, Lenin wanted his revolutionaries to treat the situation as an additional profession, if not their only profession. That meant that individuals who wished to become revolutionaries had to go through training and learn the necessary skills to be reliable and efficient. Lenin believed that if revolutionaries were trained, the organization would be harder to track down and it would allow more people to join up.  Lastly, Lenin emphasized that revolutionaries need to be willing to organize and work together, promoting stability; and thus allowing leaders to maintain continuity. Lenin concluded with a plea that demonstrated that too many current “revolutionaries” were using excuses and were not trained enough to complete their assignments. With his efficient system in place, Lenin believed that the revolution would work out better and that there would be no excuses for failure.

What makes Lenin’s theories so intriguing is that he essentially wants his revolutionaries to be trained like police officers or those in the military. While Lenin was not the first necessarily to propose this idea, it is apparent that other revolutions do not carry this form of revolutionary organization. Peasants and factory workers carried out the French Revolution. Factory workers especially pushed through the Revolutions of 1848. What’s further intriguing is that Lenin lays out a modern take on how to carry out a revolution. From the French resistance movement in WWII to the Chinese Communist Revolution, future revolutionaries follow Lenin’s guidelines. Furthermore, terrorist cells today are run on the exact same principles: include everyone you can who is willing, train them well, and respect authority, so as to keep stability and continuity. While Lenin may not be the first to try these tactics, it is his role as a mouthpiece to and for the future that makes his ideas so important.

 

Question for Commenters: Are there any other examples of those who may follow Lenin’s ideas on what it means to be a revolutionary?

[1] “Vladmir Lenin.” Wikipedia. Accessed March 24, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin.

[2] Ibid.

What Makes a Revolution

Posted on by

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.

 

Pankhurst and Women’s Suffrage

Posted on by

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the socially “ideal” woman was reserved, obedient, and dependent on her husband. Her roles were to manage the household and engage in charitable work. It was frowned upon for her to speak for herself, disagree with her spouse, and have a career.

Emmeline Pankhurst, a British political activist, challenged these social values in 1913. She targeted middle class men with the document “Militant Suffrage”, in which she explained why they should treat women differently. She advocated women’s suffrage, and explained that women were “in pursuit of liberty and the power to do useful public service”. She referred to the social struggle for women as “our civil war”.

Kandinsky’s Push Against Materialist Culture

Posted on by

 

In the introduction to his book, “Concerning the Spiritual in Art,” Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944) contradicts contemporary middle class values through a verbal assault on materialist culture, and more specifically, artwork. During this phase of his life, Kandinsky lived in pre-WWI Germany. Originally a scholar in law and economics, he only started studying art at age thirty.[1] It was likely his background in law and economics that enabled him to understand better the relationship between art and consumerism.

In this specific passage, Kandinsky targets the materialism of art that emerged with the rise of the middle class, towards the end of the nineteenth century. According to Kandinsky, this recent trend “oppressed and dominated the human soul” and disabled an individual’s ability to experience subtle emotions.[2] Moreover, Kandinsky bemoaned the remarks that individuals said regarding the art, such as “nice” or “splendid.” This contradicted the middle class value that images of beauty should be simple and to the point. Moreover, it pushed back, in a way, against free market capitalism in the sense that goods should be judged especially on their quality, and not on their quantity. To remedy this problem, Kandinsky argued that spirituality and subtlety should be placed back into art, or else it will not be remembered even into the next generation.

As the paintings in the links to images below indicate, Kandinsky did not paint pieces that would likely be placed above a fireplace. He painted artwork that made an individual think, even about the most subtle of ideas.

 

https://wassilykandinskypaintings.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/moscow-painting-by-wassily-kandinsky-wassily-kandinsky-posters-for-sale-wassily-kandinsky-prints-wassily-kandinsky-paintings-list-wassily-kandinsky-famous-paintings-replicas-cheap-f.jpg?w=490&h=510

 

http://www.daydaypaint.com/images/Commerical-Painting/Wassily-Kandinsky-Painting-029.jpg

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5VR1OlBRO_Q/R7Idd5baevI/AAAAAAAACyE/eODfJgXtEzE/s400/Yellow,+Red,+Blue.jpg

 

http://www.most-famous-paintings.org/artist-page-Wassily+Kandinsky.html

 

[1] “Wassily Kandinsky.” Wikipedia. Accessed March 16, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily_Kandinsky.

[2] Kandinsky, Wassily. “On the Spiritual in Art : First Complete English Translation, with Four Full Colour Page Reproductions, Woodcuts and Half Tones.” On the Spiritual in Art : First Complete English Translation, with Four Full Colour Page Reproductions, Woodcuts and Half Tones. Accessed March 16, 2015. https://archive.org/stream/onspiritualinart00kand#page/n0/mode/2up.

Emmeline Pankhurst on Women’s Suffrage

Posted on by

The predominant middle class value system of the 19th and early 20th centuries articulated an image of the “ideal woman.” This ideal woman was to be quiet and reserved, obedient and dependent on her husband, and the manager of the domestic sphere (the household). While much of the middle class, women included, aspired to exhibit these ideals, there were many who were dissatisfied with the prevailing notions of women’s role in society.   One critic in particular, Emmeline Pankhurst, in the document titled Militant Suffragist, 1913, rejected many of society’s conceptions concerning women. She was a staunch advocate of women’s suffrage. She tried to accomplish her goals by any means possible, including the use of violence. She argued that women were disserving of this inalienable right because, similarly to men, they have lived “useful lives,” and are “animated with the highest motives.” Pankhurst was radical because of her implementation of militant tactics, but she was also radical for the mere fact that she was active in the public sphere. She was not afraid to voice her opinions publicly, and rejected the notion that women’s only place in society was within the domestic sphere.

Challenging the Traditional Roles of Women

Posted on by

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmeline_Pankhurst