Category Archives: Uncategorized

Labour, Industry and the Error of Man

Posted on by

Both Robert Owen and Comte de St. Simon talk about the natural ways of man.  Owen especially talks about the natural errs of man and that a bloodless revolution is possible if society rejects the “system” and adopts better principles.  He rejects the industrial man and states that this is the last thing he wants people to subject themselves to as it will make a slave of them.  Marx takes more of a stance against politics and the economy saying the only things it “sets in motion are greed, and the competition against greed.” He compares the workers to commodities and the more they produce, the poorer they get.  Marx states that the worker must reconnect with nature and that nothing can be created without a good relationship between the worker and nature.

This strong natural theme is represented in many of our other readings. Man going back to nature or their natural state is a common theme and industry takes man father away from nature.  The first word in the excerpt of Hobbes’s Leviathan is nature and the natural equality between men.  In contrast Turgot talks more about the division of land and social classes and their obligations in the changing age of the Enlightenment and the up- in -coming industrial revolution.

The Economic Option

Posted on by

All three of the historians that we examined had different viewpoints regarding economics than did Adam Smith. While Smith believed laissez-faire capitalism was the best economic method a country could employ, his opponents (Marx, Saint-Simon and Owens) all believed that it belittled the poor to such an extent that it was not a viable option. Although the capitalist method increases production to unforeseen levels, it creates an undeniable divide between social classes. The owners of the companies become much richer than the working class people, while all they have to do is sit down and watch the money being made in front of their eyes. Although this was clear exploitation of the working class, Smith believed that this was the best method because it helped the country grow economically, even though the people suffered. Marx was against this. He thought that if the gap between the rich and the poor got to an uncontrollable level the whole economy would come crashing down. The workers would get angry enough to rebel against the owners and the whole governmental system would plunge into anarchy, finally resulting in the “purest form of socialism”, communism. Saint-Simon also thought that the capitalist society would not work in the long run – when competitors in the same job went up against each other they would try to beat out the other person instead of being the best worker that they could be. He supported more of an “equality” economy where the owners would work to support their employees so they their workers would enjoy putting in the hours at the factory.

Which method do you think is best? There are pros and cons to each type of economy, but I feel you have to side with the one that provides the most growth for the country as a whole over individuals. Marx’s plan would lead to inevitable conflict, while Saint-Simon’s wouldn’t provide as much production that is desired. I would choose Adam Smith’s capitalism because it vaults the specific country into a whole new class on the world scale, while raising the bar for all of the people in said country.

Competitive Industry

Posted on by

In Comte de Saint-Simon’s The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry, Saint-Simon disapproves and criticizes laissez-faire capitalism for its brutal competitive nature. He views industrialists as self-centered and vain. He claims, “the industrialist is very little concerned about society’s interests.” Saint-Simon has a Hobbesian view on the Industrial Revolution. He suggests that when two men pursue the same career, they inevitably become enemies; their lives become nasty, short, and brutish as they seek glory over each other’s career. Saint-Simon reasons that when masses of people charge into production, the result is disastrous with few industrialists succeeding and the majority victimized and suffering. The hardworking men that lose in these crises become broke and dismayed. These men assume new roles of dishonest characteristics in order to prevent capsizing in the laissez-faire capitalism. In Saint-Simon’s words, these men are “lost to humanity.” Saint-Simon supports an industrialized system where its leaders view society as the primary component and work to settle the needs of the poor.

While Saint-Simon views the laissez faire capitalism competition as disastrous, Adam Smith in his Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations, believes that through division of labor, laissez faire will increase productivity resulting in a higher standard of living. Smith focuses on the value production as the means to success whereas Saint-Simon emphasizes the ill will of man. Saint-Simon’s position assumes that personal and social interests do not coincide and thus government intervention is required to protect the poor. Saint-Simon in his Hobbesian view has little faith in the ability of men to work together for society’s interests rather than personal interests.

Law in 15th Century Rus’

Posted on by

The judicial system of 15th century Rus’ was significantly more developed than the old system used during the time of Kievan dominance. While we don’t have much more evidence for the Kievan judicial system, we do know the basics of the system. In contrast, a large amount of evidence remains from the Post-Kievan period that details the workings of the system, and in many cases, individual court cases.

The system used in 15th century Rus’ was probably more developed because of use and years of troubleshooting. The system had a large amount of time to grow by “verbally and mentally recorded case-law”. The judges that were found in the 15th century would have learned how to deal with issues not detailed in the main law codes through years of experience and teaching from former judges.

Despite the amount of development and use for the judicial system, some of the practices remaining are quite contradictory to today’s standard judicial systems. In this instance, we’ll use a land dispute between two parties as an example. A judge would travel to the location of the dispute and mediate the argument between the two parties by determining which party has the stronger evidence. The most important evidence to have is the word of local men (preferably elders) who have good knowledge of the area. Second to this is written evidence, such as a deed or charter. After these evidences, should neither party have them or should no conclusion be reached, judges would often rely on “God’s justice” or divine intervention for the decision to be made. An example of a method used by these judges is having one party kiss a cross and walk the border of the land that they claim. If they are telling the truth, then they will not be punished by God for lying (it’s very similar to what would commonly be used for witch trials). If all of these evidences fail, then the two parties would send a representative to duel with each other.

Despite the significant developments of the judicial system since Kievan times, the system employed by judges in 15th century Rus’ was not perfect. The main problems lie with their categorization of evidence. Judges would take the word of a local elder over any documents that could be presented, but these locals were often biased in their testimonies and would back a party regardless of the truth. So, the “truth” was often found in power, influence, money, or a big family.

The Effects of Mongol Rule in Rus

Posted on by

The articles by Halperin and Sakharov both pose opposite arguments regarding the Mongol’s effect on the development of Rus. Halperin claims that the view of the Mongols as “blood-sucking infidels” (106) was a result of the Orthodox Church’s so called “Ideology of Silence”. He argues that The Mongol’s actually did a lot to help advance Rus culture through integration of their own methods rather than only doing harm as the writings of the Church would have us believe. For example, many of the Princes were able to gain position with the hoard through marriage and then learn about and use the knowledge that they gain of the Mongol’s military and political techniques. The Church, Halperin states, could not accept the Mongols as having been in any way beneficial to Rus as they may have felt that acknowledging anything positive about a culture that followed a different religion undermined their own, and thus they simply refused to acknowledge the positive effects that the Mongols had.

Sakharov takes the opposing view, stating that any and all putting down of possible historical information was done by the Mongols themselves. He claims that all types of craftsmanship, from architecture and construction to art and literature, suffered under the rule of the Mongols (137) and that the growth of the nation was practically stunted because of it.  He says that the Mongols destroyed a great number of books, and therefore knowledge, which we now have no way of knowing what might have contained. Overall, he views the effect of the Mongol rule in Rus as one of profound negativity that in no way aided the nation in any way.

Sakharov talks about the Mongols using very general terms, applying them widely and without exception, saying that they “… enriched [Rus] with nothing whatever” and claiming that the negative effects of the invasion were an “indisputable historical fact” (138). Claims on such a dramatic scale are very difficult to back up, and I felt only went to make his argument read as more of a biased rant than a logical argument. Had he allowed for some movement and acknowledged even the possibility that any good might have come from the Mongols I may have found his argument to be more convincing. I certainly did find some of his points, such as the destruction of books, to be interesting, though even that idea is based on the absence of something rather than hard evidence. Although I was not convinced by Sakharov that the Mongols were an unarguable evil, neither was I convinced by Halperin that the Mongols aided Rus to the extent that he claimed they did. Although I agreed that they must have benefited Rus in several ways, I wonder how much that is weighed down by harm that they might have done. Is it possible that, had the Mongols not invaded,  and had Rus therefore not had to cover certain expenses and meet certain expectations because of that, Rus may have developed in an equally efficient yet distinctly different way? As many “what-if” questions, it’s impossible to know for certain. I do, however, believe that while Halperin’s claims were accurate, he does not consider enough how the harm they brought as well may have effected Rus’s growth.

Sakharov and Halperin’s Conflicting Viewpoints

Posted on by

When reading Charles Halperin’s and A. M. Sakharov’s one can clearly see two very opposing viewpoints on what the Mongols brought to Russian society. Halperin’s point of view illustrates that despite the fact the Mongol’s did significant damage, their culture was an integral part of society and would influence Russia for many years to come. He states that the invasion did not impact the governmental system in place beforehand much: “The Mongols restructured the social and political order of the steppe, the mainstay of international commerce and nomadism, but they left the political infrastructure of Russia alone because of its lesser importance to their economy and polity.” Russian princes remained to rule under the close watch of the Mongols. In addition to this, the Orthodox Church was never interfered with. The Mongol’s leader Genghis Khan tolerated all religions in his empire.

Contrasting Halperin’s outlook, Sakharov believes that Mongol’s were detrimental to Rus’ in most ways and did not positively influence society. He points out that the Mongol-Tatars took craftsmen captive and destroyed Russian architecture. By exterminating or exiling craftsmen, many construction techniques disappeared and things like masonry construction ceased completely. He also boldly claims that the Mongols did not enrich Russian society in any way and only a few Eastern words are retained in the Russian language.

I personally think Sakharov’s viewpoint is much too extreme and that the Mongols influence the way Russia formed in many ways. I think they showed Princes how to properly rule, and created a more centralized Rus. They also were not persecuted for their religion and were allowed to practice their own customs. It’s interesting to see how efficient and smart the Mongols were with their rule. By not destroying people’s lives around their empire, they were able to control a huge area of the world for a long time.

The Mongol Yoke

Posted on by

The excerpts from Halperin and Sakharov are drastically different. Halperin’s article, Interpreting the Mongol Yoke: The Ideology of Silence, sheds a harsh light on the church, and those who seek to discredit any innovation the Mongols might have brought to Rus. Evidence demonstrates that the Rus people borrowed from nearly all aspects of Mongol life, with the one exception being religious culture. Rus princes married Mongol princesses, and the conquered peoples borrowed Mongol political and military institutions, as well as adopting the postal network of the Mongols. On the other hand, Sakharov’s article suggests that he blames Mongols for a lack of craftsmanship during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. He claims that the Mongols destroyed a “vast number of artifacts of the written world” (137). Sakharov goes on to blame the Church for blocking Moscow’s connections with the Western world during the second half of the fifteenth century, which he perceived to be the time period of a ‘pre-Renaissance.’

Upon closer reading, Sakharov seems as if he’s grasping at straws while simultaneously making sweeping generalizations. He takes the Chronicles as complete fact, citing a few stories about destroyed books as an indicator of “how seriously Russian writings suffered from the onslaughts of the Mongol-Tatars” (137). His entire excerpt completely slams the Mongols, deciding that nothing good could have come from the Mongol-Tatar Yoke.

Upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that his article, entitled The Mongols and Cultural Change, comes from a larger book entitled Soviet Studies in History. Most likely, Sakharov wrote his article with a tremendous bias. It seems unlikely that the Soviet Union would admit that anything good came from the Mongol Invasion, let alone a political system or military institutions (which would have been pivotal to society during the thirteenth century).

What kind of bias was Sakharov writing with? Is there more evidence of his bias? Was he even biased at all?

Marx Contrasting Smith

Posted on by

In the writings of the Compte de Sainte Simon, Robert Owens, and Karl Marx, an alternate perspective- other than laissez faire capitalism- regarding industry is approached. Adam Smith- a strong proponent of the productivity that the division of labor supplied the economy- stated that industrial perspectives were the ideal way to support the economy. However, these three writers offer contrasting perspectives that certainly align more with socialism. In “Estranged Labour,” written in 1844, Marx specifically discusses how these economic changes towards industry will actually cause a cultural collapse. Instead of the idea that Smith discusses where industry will expand our economy through efficiency, Marx notes that this move will actually sever the two classes, of which only one will economically benefit. Smith’s focus of production proves to Marx that the quantity of production has overshadowed the quality of lives of those producing the goods. Marx sees that society will become even more divided and the property and factory owners will excel- be able to buy afford more, have more choice due to expanded production, etc- and yet those doing the producing will see none of the benefits of what they create. The gap between the classes will be entirely exacerbated as the workers will never live in the type of society that the goods they produce belong to. Not only does these create an economic gap, but also a largely societal one where the owners and the producers cannot relate on a basic human level: the owner does not respect the worker and the worker resents the owner.

When looking at Marx’s theory of the alienation of the workers and the owners, it is evident that these issues still exist. However, instead of simply having one owner and many workers in a community, the workers that are isolated from society are out of sight in other countries that are easy to exploit and the citizens of wealthy, western nations serve the role of the owners. Our nations’s wealth provides access to the products that the workers slave all day to make, yet they would never be able to afford those products. They work their whole day to create a society they will never live in. In a world that understands both Smith and Marx, have we consciously chosen that exploitation of others because we truly believe in Smith and laissez faire or because Marx is inconvenient?

Debates over the Effects of the Mongol Invasion

Posted on by

Halperin’s and Sakharov’s articles offer different historical intepretations of the reception and effects of the Mongol invasion in Rus’. Halperin argues that, contrary to teachings perpetuated by the Church, the Rus adapted many aspects of Mongolian life which advanced Rus’ society. For instance, during the Mongol occupation, Rus’ society learned to use the Mongols’ efficient military structure and postal service. The Mongols also “rerouted the fur trade to extract greater revenue” (Halperin 106) for Rus’, thus assisting the culture they had conquered. Halperin makes the point, however, that the Mongols did not force every aspect of their culture onto the Rus’ people, such as their religion. Such an interpretation portrays the Mongol invasion as a kind and enriching period in Rus’ history. On the other hand, Sakharov, in a study of Rus’ culture after the Mongol occupation ended, argues that the Mongols had no positive effect on Rus’. He explains that the Mongols, in taking away Rus’ best craftsmen, created centuries of a Rus’ with inferior architecture. Sakharov then contends that, after the Mongols left, Rus’ culture became much more sophisticated and enlightened, thus underscoring the dark period that had been the Mongols’ reign.

Sakharov writes, “Reborn and developing Russian culture regained its national character in full. The Mongol-Tartars enriched it with nothing whatever, and their influence was quite insignificant in practice” (Sakharov 138). I find this claim to be a little too broad and definitive to be taken as fact. Even disregarding the period after the occupation, the Mongol invasion was clearly significant in its empowering of Moscow and ultimate depowering of Kiev. But moreover, the fact that Rus’ culture exploded in literature and architecture after the occupation also signfies that the Mongols affected Rus’. Perhaps, Rus’ culture wouldn’t have advanced as quickly as it did if the Mongols had not stunted it (if indeed they did stunt it) for so long.

I wonder how the effects Mongol occupation is viewed in other parts of the world. Does the Middle-East and China contend that the Mongols had a positive or negative impact on their cultures? Furthermore, do different geographic sections of Russia today claim different interpretations about the Mongol invasions?

On Division of Labor

Posted on by

Smith states that the division of labor significantly improves the productive power in manufacture through three ways: the increased dexterity of workman by repetition, the reduced time brought by the quick transition between workers, and the efficiency brought by the machines. These workers, who perform repetitive and tedious work in order to make accommodations, are only a small part of labor in the industry world. A large quantity and variety of labor is needed in every chain of the manufacturing industry, from collecting the raw material to transporting goods from one place to another. As the industry thrives, more jobs are provided and the economics improves. Therefore it seems that a large supply of labor is good for a country to flourish industrially. In Thomas Malthus’ “Essay on Population,” however, oversize population, which means the people residing on the land exceed the land’s ability to feed them, eventually results in oversupply in the labor market, and the poor will have to live a harder life because the price of labor decrease. “The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before,” as Malthus clearly stated in the essay. When putting the two essays together, a question is raised: if the labor lives a worse life while the economy is thriving, who lives a better life? Obviously, the employer.

Is Adam Smith intentionally deviating from the fact that employers are exploiting the labors? He discusses the great efficiency and employment brought by the industrialization, and the peasants actually live a better life than before, in contrast to what Malthus has argued, because, “perhaps, that the accommodation of an European prince does not always so much exceed that of an industrious and frugal peasant, as the accommodation of the latter exceeds that of many an African king, the absolute master of the lives and liberties of ten thousand naked savages.”