Spencer Hoey
Howard Zinn’s Karl Marx in Soho play provides a first person narrative from “Karl Marx” about how he believes that his ideas are still relevant today. The character engages with the audience as if he was still alive. Throughout the play, Karl Marx argues that the capitalist system from 200 years ago is still relevant today causing so many to suffer which is why a change is needed.
The play begins with Marx talking about how the Marxist Society of London misinterpreted his ideas and how much stress this caused him. He wanted his ideas to be the ignition to form a worker’s union revolt, not another call for the proletariat to gain power. Marx goes on to talk about where society went wrong, but how society is smart enough to realize a change is needed. One main problem is class division which is causing millions of people to suffer each year. Marx pointed out that 1 percent owns 49 percent of the wealth in America while millions of Americans remain homeless or trapped in poverty. These numbers hold true because society is still controlled by a proletariat and bourgeoisie system where factories such as Walmart thrive when the workers are compensated barely enough to survive. Marx sees these problems stemming from the fact that all people think about is profit and how work will lead them to some form of comfort. This is the goal of the capitalist system, but why, when the system causes so many to suffer. A change is needed to branch away from this idea because without change, society will be stuck in the system set in place. Society will not only be stuck but actually becoming worse as other problems such as drugs, alcohol and violence become more prominent in such a divided system. Marx knew 200 years ago what was wrong with society and people today still have not realized. A change is needed if society wants to branch away from the system that has hurt so many for so long, and a change will indeed come.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Farmer’s Market Assignment
(Harriet, Max, Alex, Patrick, and Sarah)
At the Farmer’s market, we talked to many different vendors from all over as we worked our way through our shopping list. One of the vendors we met was selling a wide array of beautiful flowers. Michelle Elston is the owner and farmer of Roots Flower Farm, which is located in Carlisle on Walnut Bottom Road. As newcomers to the area, it was interesting for us to meet a local who was enthusiastic and involved with the community. They grow a variety of different flowers from tulips to dahlias to peonies. They also have herbs and vegetables such as basil and peppers. Despite their wide range of products, they tend to grow in smaller quantities because they prefer to conduct business locally. When asked why they chose this market their response was immediate and their passion was undeniable. While they want to make a profit, they focus on the local economy because it establishes strong relationships with clients and it helps stabilize and build the local economy. They could not give a specific description of their “typical customer,” but instead said their customers are diverse. Their ability to appeal to everyone, we think, speaks volumes to the success of their business. Apart from the their stand at the famer’s market, they also do weddings and other special events. The goal of their work is to seek a balance between “work and play, work and family, and work and rest.” Their business allows them to do something they are interested in but to also have a life outside of the farm.
From the vendor who we bought the peppers from we asked, “Who are your ‘typical’ customers?” She answered saying most of her customers are in town mothers with their children and college students. Upon further questioning we found out that the mothers often use the food they buy for home-cooked meals later that day. We then went to another vender that was selling more fruits and vegetables where we purchased carrots. As we were buying the carrots we noticed that they were also selling apples that were about twice the size of a large mans fist. In shock of the size and quality of the apples we started to talk to the vendor about them. We found out that the vendors were representatives from Peter’s Orchard, where the apples were grown. What really amazed us is that the majority of the apples grown there are sold to applesauce companies. We were unable to figure out the names of the companies unfortunately as the main representative was on the phone. Our last stop was at a stand of Amish farmers to buy tomatoes. We asked one of farmers why he farms and at first we got a simple “Cause I enjoy it.” After further encouragement we learned that it was a way of life for him and that his parents had also been farmers. He also mentioned that he provides a lot of his crops for his community. Overall, our experience at the Farmer’s market was interesting and opened our eyes to a part of Carlisle that we had not experienced before. Food clearly brings people together, especially when the food is used to support one another.
Peace, Love, and Rock and Roll in the USSR
In the discussion of Raleigh’s chapters exploring the Sputnik Generation in the USSR, the notion that during the 1950s and 1960s Soviet society shared many similarities to that of the United States in their gender relations and in their restrictive childhoods. William Risch’s article, “Soviet ‘Flower Children.’ Hippies and the Youth Counter-culture in 1970s L’viv,” continues to examine the cultural similarities between the two warring nations. More particularly, Risch seeks to address how the hippies in the Soviet Union affected the counter-culture that emerged among the generation born after the end of World War II (page 565).
The three previous readings in addition to Risch’s article all focus on the idea of the developing Soviet childhood in a post-war and post-Stalin Soviet Union. Margaret Peacock discussed the differences between the Communist Party’s expectations for children and the actual behaviors of children in the post-war society by focusing on the 1957 Moscow World Youth Festival. The Party still excepted the children to act in a discipline manner and obey their elders, something the interviewees in Raleigh’s article illustrated. However, during the festival many Soviet children disregarded these perceived notions of their behavior and acted in non-Party sanctioned ways (i.e. clubbing, drinking excessively). This juxtaposition between expectation and reality illustrates the restricted freedom all Soviet youths experienced in the 1950s and 1960s.
As Risch’s article indicates, the hippies within the Soviet Union (and perhaps America, as well) constituted a powerful minority amongst the children of their generation. Hippies in the Soviet Union, especially L’viv, experienced alienation due to their counter-cultural views (page 572). This along with the diverging notions of child behavior between the Party expectations and reality make it difficult to identify one cohesive idea of a Soviet Childhood in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. However, I believe it could be argued that the majority of children growing up in a post-war Soviet society, particularly those of families associated with the Party such as Natalia P., experienced the “typical” Soviet childhood of restricted freedom.
Families in the USSR
When one thinks of kids in the USSR, one thinks of Communism and institutionalism. Therefore, before I read, I had to actually remind myself that there are actually families in the USSR. It’s also easy to forget that the Soviet education system was one of the best in the world, easily comparable to that of the US. When the narrator discusses when she and the other girls studied “Home Economics” and the boys studied “Shop”, it really brings some parallels back to the US, where there are similar divisions in the education system.
The UN Genocide Charter and Auschwitz
The two readings we had assigned this evening, The UN Charter on Genocide and Primo Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz both discuss genocide, but approach the topic in very different ways. One can safely assume that those who wrote up the charter did not experience the atrocities of a concentration camp, and are outsiders looking in. Levi, on the other hand, speaks with the voice of a survivor. He knows what it means to survive Auschwitz, and thus, mass genocide.
The charter uses very sweeping terms when describing what genocide is. They do not go into the minute details, but stay general such as in Article II: “(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”. This may be because they wish to capture all possible forms of genocide, but at the same time, this method gives a lot of leeway for certain activities to pass.
Levi, however, gives very specific examples as to how they were discriminated against. To be at Auschwitz was to be at the very bottom, everything was taken away from you, “…nothing belongs to us any more; they have taken away our clothes, our shoes, even our hair; if we speak, they will not listen to us, and if they listen, they will not understand.” (27) Even if a person survived the concentration camp, they still were made to become something less than human, like cattle, and this process will undoubtedly affect the rest of their life. Levi even mentions how certain portions of the experience still linger in his dreams.
When genocide is committed, it not only destroys a group of individuals, but an entire culture, and both sources indicate this. Even if an individual survives, their culture may have died, making the existence of the survivor very lonely, and their account of events, less believable.
View On Their “Lost Generation”
Both interviews that Donald J. Raleigh performed struck me to have very different perceptions. The two interviewees definitely represented different attitudes towards the subject of their lives, but this was mainly due to their backgrounds, Gennadii Viktorovich Ivanov definitely gave the feeling that he had “formulated his answers specifically” for the interview and was careful of what information he disclosed, but one would expect a policeman or an operative to act in such a way. Natalia P. on the other hand seemed to be less careful and cautious in what she said in the duration of her interview. Both Gennadii and Natalia seemed to agree in that they did not consider themselves as to be apart of a “lost generation”.
Natalia Pronina discusses the way in which she participated in activities that made her youth-self different from the generations after her. She explains that her generation expressed much more freedom and expressiveness, which adults at the time did not like and were not used to, she says ”the next generation no longer subordinated themselves to her” (regarding her director who rejected her short skirt). She referred to her life as a normal life, where she was in a comfortable and happy situation, although she mentions she both lost and gained certain things throughout her time growing up. She explains the way her parents instilled both the sense of duty and responsibility into her in which today’s younger generation has no grasp on.
In regards to the way he grew up, Gennadii Ivanov explains it to have been much like the way his parents grew up, especially considering their views. He makes no complaints in the way he grew up and like Natalia seems to have expressed a comfortable upbringing. Gennadii does share the same opinion as Natalia, he does not consider his generation to be termed a lost generation, but considers later generations to be lost. He also explains the way in which people really did not care about things that are considered important now, including money.
Both interviewees seem to share the same views on their generation; they describe it be a place where they were comfortable where old views were still held and where new views were being developed. Overall they did seem to express a belief in a change in where society was headed.
Soviet youth sets out on a ‘new, heroic and revolutionary path’
For Soviet Leadership, the 1957 Moscow World Festival of Youth and Students was a prime opportunity to illustrate the Soviet Union as “an international, active, peace-loving population that was collectively committed to promoting an alternative to American exploitation around the world.” The festival contributors were depended upon to exhibit Soviet Youth as superior, having admirable ethics and awareness. These youth were not only expected to convey these ideals, but also give the impression to the world delegates that they were invigorated by the memorandum in Khrushchev’s 20th Party Congress speech and embody “Soviet openness and international mobilization.” The Youth was supposed to present these sentiments and ideals as “participants who were acting of their own free will” as a means to revise the public assumption of a forcible Soviet government. Margaret Peacock portrays the 1957 festival as endeavoring to “replace older Stalinist visions of grateful, insulated Soviet youngsters with new images of well educated, independent, creative and activist youth” competent of international opposition with capitalism.
Soviet Youth: Perception of Reformation
As General Secretary of the Party, Kruschev wanted to show the World that the Soviet Union had ascended morally from its earlier Stalinist years. He wanted to prove that as a reformer of the Soviet Union, that the face of the Soviets had changed to represent the growing youth in the country who would bring their knowledge and new ideals to the Party. This represented the deconstruction of the old Colonial Soviet Union and the reformation of the party idealism. Kruschev and Komosol wanted to emulate that the Soviet Union youth were on the precipice of enacting a social revolution of sorts. However the Western media would conceive this ritual to be an act, that the youth had no say over policy from within the Party. The Moscow World Festival was an illustration of the social warfare that was being conducted by the Soviets and the West as both sides perceived this ceremonial event quite differently. There was and is very little that these two very culturally different geographical regions can understand the same way, policies meant to be executed for progress will be perceived as pugnacious and belligerent.
Spengler’s “Decline of the West”, 1922
Spengler was born in 1880, the first born child of a German mining family. When he was ten, he was trained in the Greco-Roman tradition, learning Greek, Latin, mathematics and art. However, he was also heavily influenced by Nietzche and Goethe’s writings. When he later entered college for a teaching degree, he continued his pursuits of the classics. Spengler was notorious for not including sources in his papers and essays and was heavily criticized for it during his time.
It is no surprise then that his work, “The Decline of the West” is steeped in Greco-Roman references and terms. He parallels the events leading to the end of Roman democracy to the coming end (so he says) of European democracy. It is understandable why Spengler takes a negative tone in his work. In the settlements of the Treaty of Versailles, it is safe to say that Germany got the short end of the stick, so to speak. So Spengler, a born-and-raised German must have felt disenfranchised when he saw his country humiliated and his investments lost. He became very poor before he eventually got his work published.
His message is prophetic and critical, the era of endless progress and materialism is over. The Industrial Revolution is over. A time of Caesars, so he says, is coming. The principles of enlightenment and education will end up hurting Europe in the end.
Question: Do you think that Spengler may have predicted the coming of Adolf Hitler, and Communism in Europe?
Author Info: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n2p-2_Stimely.html
Children of the War
The drive for the collective propagated the Soviet image during World War II. In his article “Between Salvation and Liquidation,” Furst notes that images of crying, bedraggled children could be found between posters of heroic soldiers and dutiful citizens. The presence of street children and orphans was not to be blamed solely on their parents; the Soviet Union, as a collective, was at fault. Therefore, it was the duty of the Motherland as whole to find a solution. Thousands of prospective foster-parents flocked to orphanages, eager to play their part in vanquishing Germany. But were the children really better off with unqualified, duty-bound parents? There is no doubt that the vast majority was physically better off in their new homes; begging is not a consistent food source. However, most of these children carried psychological scars unimaginable to those untouched by war. They deserved a second chance, a fresh start with loving parents who could care for them unconditionally. Clearly, by the number of reports of both runaways and foster-children with “nervousness,” their psychological states were not being well looked after. So did families feel obligated to adopt children? Did they reluctantly take in little girls and boys into homes where they played second fiddle to biological children? Did the Soviet state’s efforts to encourage adoption help or hurt the waifs and orphans?