Capitalization

It seems like the Kievan Rus’ empire just dissolved under unfavorable circumstances. The general population became dissatisfied with their Grand Prince in Novgorod, and the Mongols’ invasion of the region further extinguished the flame of Rus’ society. Kievan Rus’ again proved to be highly religious in its political endeavors, and although a split between Prince Ivan and his people occurred – it arguably proved to be a step in the right direction for Rus’ society. Even Kaiser and Marker argue that the kingdom of Rus’ deserved the pummeling it received by the Mongols as punishment for the careless and selfish princes who ignored the wise words of Iaroslav (100).

In line with the ‘princes’ punishment,’ one thing that I questioned throughout the reading was – why was that the reason – the sole heavy hitting reason for the Mongol invasion? Even if Rus’ society was incredibly religious, were they in denial of the Mongols’ strength? Were they in denial of their situation? Was the Mongol invasion a ‘wake up call’ of sorts? The list of questions like this can go on and on, but that’s because the number of lacking answers to questions about this transitional period in Kievan Rus’ society goes on and on. Most of the explanatory language used by the authors is highly religious and ‘mythological’ to an extent, which leads me to assume they don’t know too much about these occurrences (they being the authors and members of Rus’ society).

Development of the Post-Kievan State and the Mongal Conquest

Novgorod and Muscovy became one united state under the command of a Grand Prince, Ivan III. The chronicles assigned for this evening depict the development of Ivan’s control over a span of territory that would eventually become a state in and of itself instead of a loosely united set of principalities with no strong connection to a secular leader. Ivan executed his control with a complete political force, ranging from military intimidation to religious conviction. The Grand Prince also employed a tactic favored by Assyrian generals in the days of humanity’s first civilizations in the fertile crescent; a technique known as ‘calculated frightfulness’. Much like Assyrians did to conquered people, Ivan proposed (and eventually succeeded in) moving people from his own ethnicity into conquered territories (Muscovites into Novgorod) and taking potentially threatening members of the Novgorod community and sending them into military service in the Nizovskaia land, far and away from their homeland and any potential of uprising in the land recently acquired by the Grand Prince.

The chronicle jumps out of order. Following the addressing of Post-Kievan Rus, the chronicle in RS tackles the history of the Mongol invasion that lasted from 1235 to 1238. This period in Russian history completely redefined the way in which the Rus people identified themselves, as well as the society as a whole functioned. The chronicles describe the Mongols as an all destroying devil-race, “from whose beginning wished no good to the human race.” The chronicles go on to describe the ways in which the Mongols shed Christian blood, as well as a plethora of other atrocities, including the dethroning and subsequent murder of multiple Rus princes, effectively ending the governmental structure of the land which now lay in Mongol control.

Christian Rus

I think that this reading really helps to give a sense of how ingrained the Russian Orthodox Church was in early Rus society. The most obvious example of this is clearly the Chronicles themselves and how they are written. For instance, when Novgorod did not want to submit to the rule of the Grand Prince, the Chronicles portrayed it as not a political schism, but one of deep religious controversy. Instead of saying that the people of Novgorod had betrayed the Grand Prince, the Chronicles claim that Novgorod betrayed the commandments of God himself. As such, the battles between the Novgorodians and the armies of the Grand Prince are horribly skewed in favor of the Muscovites, making ridiculous claims that an army of 4000 Muscovites was able to defeat the Novgorod army, which mustered nearly 40,000 men.

Another indicator of the power the church had during this time period are the records that we have from after the Mongol invasion. In the analysis given by Kaiser and Marker, they talk about how the Mongols were viewed as pagans sent by God to punish the people of Rus for the infighting going on at the time. In spite of these views and the Chronicles consistent criticizing of the Mongols as being “godless pagans” the Orthodox Church was allowed to survive under Mongol rule and was given vast amounts of power. As long as the khan’s tax was paid, the Orthodox Church was allowed to continue its existence and it was able to develop a level of influence among the people that would never truly vanish. I believe that this was the point in Russian history were the Orthodox Church began to latch onto the power it now holds. Very few places in the world show so much dedication to their religion as Russia does; despite decades of oppression by the Soviets, the Orthodox Church immediately resurfaced after the fall of the Soviet Union and is still heavily influential in the government. I believe that without the Mongol invasion this may not have happened.

Wealth and Population

Adam Smith primarily focuses the relationship individuals have with one another in a capitalist society, which he describes within An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.  Adam Smith begins his inquiry with a look into the division of labor among a population.  Smith determines that the individuals are most productive when they do what they are best at, through their own discovery of his/her own talents and abilities.  With his pin-maker scenario, Smith’s provides an easy to understand example for his ideal working conditions.  In which, Smith says that each step of pin-making is to be completed by a number of different individuals who specialize on one specific part of the process.  Smith views this division of labor to be vastly superior in contrast to an individual doing all the steps in creating a pin.  He believes it this division of labor will increase the amount of work and goods an individual can do, as well as cutting down on the length of time is takes to create a product. Additionally, he states that machinery can be put to more efficient use.Smith continues his inquiry, calling the possibility of maintaining subsistence for humankind.  He thinks that earth is simply incapable of keeping up with the forever increasing human population.

Smith’s sees the division of labor as a vital step into creating a healthy and productive economy.  The specialization of work in each individual allows for a large quantity of a specific piece of a product to be traded and sold to create a more completed product.  This product can then be traded for other products that individuals may require, thus promoting a large scale economy that spreads across nations and continents.

The Mongols

This reading focused on a more particular aspect of the Mongol horde and their invasions in Rus. Rather it focused on the belief, by the chroniclers of Rus, of the Mongols being a punishment. As a result of the continuos lack in proper leadership by the princes of Rus, such as fighting amongst each other to control more power as opposed to honoring what they, as well as each other, had, the sight of the Mongol invaders quickly became to be believed as a punishment from God. I found this to be the most interesting aspect of the reading particularly due to the impact in which religion, primarily God, plays on society during this time.

This reading also focused on the affect of the Mongol invasions after having occurred. Particularly the affect the invasions had on the Orthodox Church. With the continuous Mongol invasions the Mongol forces, although having destroyed many of the churches, gained control over religion. As a result of this the Orthodox Church was able to successfully establish themselves as “an independent institution” which ultimately allowed the church to become less restricted and more powerful.

The Division of Labor

Adam Smith’s Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, and gives his descriptions of the things that are responsible for helping to build a nations’ wealth at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The first chapter speaks about the Division of Labor, which Smith states has been the cause of the greatest improvement in the increased productivity of labor. He gives the example of the pin-makers and their ability to increase productivity and output with a division of labor.  Each step in making a pin was performed by a different worker, allowing for a more efficient process and resulting in the creation of many more pins. If there was no division of labor and each man worked independently, they would not be able to produce the same number of pins. Therefore with the introduction of the division, no matter in what arena, there is a proportionable increase in the productive powers of labor. When a man is only responsible for completing one step in a process, his dexterity improves and he can increase the quantity of work he can perform, while saving time in the process. Each individual worker becomes an expert in their particular task, resulting in more work being completed more efficiently.

With an increase in technology and the development of new machines in the Industrial Revolution came the idea of the division of labor. The workers new ability to concentrate on specific tasks led them to become more skilled in that task. This specialization allowed for increased efficiency, a growth in output and increase in trade, leading to greater economic independence for the nation.

 

One Child Policy

Adam Smith claims that human growth will inevitably push the limits of agricultural growth, as humans reproduce at exponential rate and plant life does not. The limits of our agrarian capabilities are somewhat unknown, however, there is current awareness that if the human population does outgrow the available resource pool, the result would be wide spread starvation and death.

            The People’s Republic of China imparted the “One-Child Policy”, or the banning of Chinese families to produce more than one child without extra taxation, in 1979. The One Child Policy prevented an estimated 200 million births, and has greatly alleviated the overstretching of China’s industrial and agricultural resources necessary to accommodate its citizens. Over population and scarcity of resources is usually a byproduct of a society that is undergoing a rapid process of industrialization and urbanization, while simultaneously failing to expand its resource pool—the exponentially increasing population density despite the absence of adequate resources for maintenance. In contrast, less refined hunter-gatherer societies do not run into these issues, as naturally their populations do not grow exponentially in density because they lack the original resources and they must be mobile.

One Child Policy

Adam Smith claims that human growth will inevitably push the limits of agricultural growth, as humans reproduce at exponential rate and plant life does not. The limits of our agrarian capabilities are somewhat unknown, however, there is current awareness that if the human population does outgrow the available resource pool, the result would be wide spread starvation and death.

             The People’s Republic of China imparted the “One-Child Policy”, or the banning of Chinese families to produce more than one child without extra taxation, in 1979. The One Child Policy prevented an estimated 200 million births, and has greatly alleviated the overstretching of China’s industrial and agricultural resources necessary to accommodate its citizens. Over population and scarcity of resources is usually a byproduct of a society that is undergoing a rapid process of industrialization and urbanization, while simultaneously failing to expand its resource pool—the exponentially increasing population density despite the absence of adequate resources for maintenance. In contrast, less refined hunter-gatherer societies do not run into these issues, as naturally their populations do not grow exponentially in density because they lack the original resources and they must be mobile.

 

The Wealth of Nations and the Division of Labor

Adam Smith writes about the division of labor and its essential role in industry and innovation. He uses the example of a pin-maker with little experience, who may by himself manufacture only one pin in a day. There are as many as eighteen distinct steps that go into making a single pin; these are tasks that if all executed by one man take much longer to master and much longer to carry out. If these eighteen tasks are delegated to different pairs of hands however, each pair carrying out only two or three of these eighteen steps, the production of pins will skyrocket. This is also true for any industry. Even the simplest products take many steps and many different processes to manufacture. These individual tasks require varying levels of skill. When labor is divided among many different laborers there is less time wasted sauntering from task to task. A worker may concentrate on one task throughout the work day without switching his attention to another distinct task and having to adapt to that task after performing the previous one.

While it is natural for a person to saunter between tasks and to initially perform at a lower rate when starting a new task, it is also natural to innovate to improve efficiency. Smith uses the example of the boy responsible for opening and shutting alternately the communication between the boiler and the cylinder on the first fire engines. The boy naturally preferred to spend time with his friends over being constantly employed on the fire engine, so he invented a device to replace his job on the engine: he “observed that, by tying a string from the handle of the valve which opened this communication, to another part of the machine, the valve would open and shut without his assistance” thereby allowing him to “divert himself with his play-fellows.” Smith notes that the operators of machines are not the only drivers of innovation; the makers of machines and observers are also major drivers of innovation and improvements in efficiency. There are those whose only occupation is to observe and create improvements to existing machines and processes.

The division of labor in individual industries is an important device for efficiency, but specialization is also essential for innovation and efficiency. Smith points out all the different processes and industries that go into making something as simple as a wool coat: ship-builders, sail-makers, and rope-makers were needed to facilitate the ability to transport goods from place to place; tool-makers made the shears that were used to get the wool from the sheep and the shepherd raised that sheep. There are countless other professions and specialties that go into the seemingly simple process of making a wool coat. This is true for any other manufactured good as well.

The Wealth of Nations and Essay on Population

Chapter 1 of Smith’s famous text argued that specialization is key to economic growth. He explained how making each man a master of his particular trade makes production faster and leads to further innovation; a cycle of rapid growth then ensues. This growth spreads more wealth over more people, narrowing the gap between princes and peasants. Malthus, in his First Essay on Population, debunked Godwin’s argument that a more egalitarian society and economics will end poverty. Malthus mainly argued that population inevitably reaches an equilibrium with subsistence because population naturally tends to increase but subsistence is definite.

These two philosophers’ arguments are more closely related than they seem at face value. Malthus argued that population is limited by what the earth has to offer. Smith proposed a way to make production much more efficient–specialization. Increased specialization, makes production of materials, all of which are either directly or indirectly from the earth, more efficient. Therefore the more efficient production becomes, the more people the rather can support. The only true limitation on the human population is technology, which is forever developing at an increasing rate. Thus population capacity can never be accurately predicted. The factors which we see at limitations to the population capacity now are mainly space, food, water, and clean air. However, what if science brings up the ability to turn all waste from resources into new resources? Then space would become the final limitation. What if we then develop a way to live at higher elevations or beneath the sea? Questions like these seem unreasonable at the present day, but who could have predicted that nuclear energy would possible one thousand years ago?