Category Archives: Uncategorized

Churchill: Stalin a second Hitler?

Posted on by

Winston Churchill’s speech in Westminster Missouri about the new metaphorical “Iron Curtain” which he says has descended of over Europe is spoken from a hard line capitalist view of the Soviet Union. This speech which is very anti-Communist, was the beginning of the Cold War, as Stalin would respond to it later in the year. After the war many people in Great Britain, and the United States felt threatened by the massive size of the Soviet military. The Soviet Union had beaten back the Germans and taken new territory alone with regaining all of the old land that had been taken during the war. Churchill advocated for trying to stop the problem of Communism, for he feared that Stalin, like Hitler, might use his great power, and the largest military force in the world at the time to continue his march across Europe.

Churchill’s speech is widely considered the beginning of the Cold War. Churchill believed that Stalin should be removed from power because he was not only a dictator, but the Communist system was anti-capitalist, and anti-Christian, which he sites in his speech, “Except in the British Commonwealth and in the United States where Communism is in its infancy, the Communist parties or fifth columns constitute a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilization”. He says that Stalin is essentially the greatest current threat to the leading Western nations of Great Britain, and America. Churchill’s speech may have also come off as very anti Communist due to his dislike of Stalin. Churchill did not agree with many provisions of the Yalta Conference, and thus he distrusted Stalin.

This speech is not specifically about the demolition of Stalin, but the threat that he posed to the free world in Churchill’s mind. Churchill was paranoid by the end of the war that Stalin’s power had grown to great and he advocated for his removal, which in turn put Stalin on the defensive. This speech basically began the modern Cold War era with distrust, and division, instead of peace.

The Social Crisis of Language

Posted on by

The author of the article Sarah Davies sets out on a mission to solve the unresolved question of ‘Was the USSR a class(les) society?’ by presenting her own school of thought. However, Davies proceeds to elaborate that only workers and peasants will be analyzed by differentiating their use of language to form social identity. Under Stalin’s regime, language was an issue of national policy.  If one were to speak out in an unauthorized  manner, it would be considered unlawful against the party therefore separating oneself from society.  I therefore agree that the Soviet society did not exist in a classless state of existence according to the Marxist idealism.  Marx believed that the eventual elimination of the class society was essential to the development and survival of the new communist world.  Stalin’s policy of a unified and single usage of certain dialect would create buffer zones in the way peasants thought as opposed to the regular workers idealism in country.  That automatically is cause enough for a social identity crisis particularly in the class divide realm.

Frederick W. Taylor

Posted on by

Author: Frederick W. Taylor was born in 1856 in Philadelphia, and died in 1915 in the same city. He was born into a lawyer’s family, and excelled in academics. He passed the entrance exam for Harvard, but unfortunately was unable to go due to failing eyesight. He later joined the Midvale Steel Company where he rose in the ranks from laborer to chief engineer. He could have become an engineer, but chose to focus more on work reforms in factories instead.

Context: Taylor lived during the height of the Industrial Revolution in America, and although he did not live in Europe, it is clear his ideas were influenced by other European authors on the subject. In his work, The Principles of Scientific Management, he takes many ideas from Adam Smith. Namely, that factory workers can improve themselves almost indefinitely, that incorporating machines is a good thing, and that everyone is connected and everyone improves from utilizing factory labor.

Language: Taylor also uses a very scientific approach in his work (much like Adam Smith), and uses dialogue to prove his point. His dialogue uses the accent of the laborer in the transcript, to perhaps show what kind of character he is, as well as his education level and why he can be persuaded to improve his workload in a gruff way.

Audience: It is pretty clear that he is speaking to the Middle to Upper classes here. He is trying to explain why this method works to other possible factory managers so that they may incorporate this method as well. He is not speaking to the actual laborers. If he were, it would possibly jeopardize his methods, since he is speaking about how to manipulate the workers so they perform better.

Intent: To reveal a new method of managing laborers: appeal to them on an individual basis, get to know them, and learn what will make them perform better.

Message: The archetype of the manager overseeing from afar while the laborers do all the work is an unstable and unproductive one. It is important for the manager to take on some of the work and be the glue that holds the factory together.

Source for biographical evidence: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/584820/Frederick-W-Taylor

Five Cheers for Five Year Plans?

Posted on by

When collectivization started, it opened a new chapter in Soviet economics, while closing another.  With the ending of the NEP that attempted to use the private sector to bring Russia away from its perceived ‘backwardness’, the Five Year Plans were implemented to achieve the same goal.  However, as Lewin in On Soviet Industrialization describes, it was at great cost.

Lewin begins by establishing that he declares the NEP to be too weak and did not encompass enough of the economy to be successful.  He states that the “NEP showed signs of not coping”, which could eventually lead to an economic crisis (273).  Unfortately, as Lewin continues, it is clear that the Five Year Plans were not better, possibly even worse.  Beginning with the first plan that ended a year early which plunged the entire economy into chaos, it was unclear what the future of the system was going to be.  Since there was no incentive for workers to be productive, unlike in the NEP, the end of quarters always became mad dashes for quotas and manipulation of books became rampant.  Lewin attributes this to the command system, where there were simply too many superiors making too many demands causing resources to be stretched too thin or not to be created at all.    Lewin concludes that this ruined “initiative from below” (283), with too many bureaucratic layers and leaders with self-interests.

The Five Year Plans quickly enveloped the entire economic system, where so many citizens had to sacrifice so little.  This is an economic system that should not be celebrated.

The workers of Manitostroi

Posted on by

The trouble with planning out every aspect of life is that you simply can’t. You can’t account for unexpected drought or famine or war- and especially not for the will of the individuals. Stalin and the Bolsheviks discovered this the hard way, with the implementation, and subsequent failures of their “Five Year Plan.” One of the most notable examples, Magnitostroi, is presented by Stephen Kotkin in his article, “Peopling Magnitostroi.”
The poor, the illiterate, and the exiled were all shuffled off to a desolate city, Magnitostroi, to spend months at a time laboring away at products they would never be able to enjoy. Entirely dependent on the train, their only connection to the outside world, inhabitants were cut off from family and friends. The city grew from twenty-five people to 250,000 in the space of three years, but this was no indicator of its prosperity. Many of the workers were given advances to convince them to work in Manitostroi, but even those who received money often fled after short periods of time. The government was unable to account for the simple misery of the residents of the city. According Kotkin, “even for the standards of the day, living conditions on the site were harsh” ((Kotkin, Stephen. “Peopling Magnitostroi: the Politics of Demography” in Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization. Berkley: University of California, 1993: 84.)) No amount of money in the world (and certainly not the amount the workers were receiving) was enough to entreat most to stay.
So why did the government insist on building a city out of nothing, on shaping and sculpting a desolate patch of ground to its every whim? Was it in a show of power- to prove that nothing was stronger than the willpower of the people, forced by the hand of the government? Was populating Magnitostroi truly an achievement, as officials claimed, or was it a blatant imposition on free will?

Industrialization- Five Year Fail

Posted on by

The first five year plan was doomed to fail from the start.  It was not directly correlated to the policy of mass collectivization (which also resulted in failure) and or the agricultural crisis as a whole.  But rather the five year plan failed due to lack of logistics and special knowledge to operate heavy machinery.  This coupled with weak national agriculture and widespread food shortage led to hungry workers and no means to refuel lost energy of factory workers.  Stalin would see this as would his agents and would respond with a wide spread push to increase labor and hours.  This would merely contribute to the issue of the first five year plan.  No industrial effort will be successful if the state does not have the food to feed its workers or the knowledge of the machinery leading the revolution.  The plans that would follow would not be any more sufficiently executed as the agricultural aspect is a constant lingering theme for Stalin’s policies.

Bismarck’s Ideas

Posted on by

Author: Otto von Bismarck was a Prussian political figure. He had a large influence in German and European affairs from the 1860s until 1890. He helped unite Germany in to what it is today.
Context: He wrote this during his rise to power. He describes the events that took place while Austria was attempting to negotiate terms of surrender. The majority of the council wanted to continue with military action but Bismarck advised against it and wanted peace.
Language: Informative and clear. He is recalling memories and writing them exactly has he remembers in order to let people know the events that occurred.
Audience: Writing for the people of Germany and Prussia. He feared that if military action continued there would be a desire for revenge by Austria.
Intent: Inform the people of the events that took place and why he thought it was necessary to stand for peace instead of further military action.
Message: He is attempting to conclude the best way for Germany to rise to power while not creating unnecessary enemies. War is inevitable but in time, Austria would be a better ally than adversary.
Why?: Bismarck wants to let the people know that he was the one that wanted peace with Austria in order to prevent any future tensions.

Karl Marx and Comte de Saint-Simon

Posted on by

Author: Comte de Saint-Simon

– Born October 17th, 1760 in France and died May 19th 1825 in Paris.

– Belonged to a poor aristocratic family, had a bumpy education, and joined the army at 17.

– Aided the Americans in the Revolutionary War.

– Gained wealth due to the Reign of Terror, but quickly became bankrupt and attempted to take his own life.

 

Context:

– Wrote during a very tumultuous time in France’s history, before industrialization.

– Witnessed the hight of the French Revolution, and the rise of Napoleon.

 

Language:

– He often uses a fairly sarcastic tone to mock society and its views.

– He uses casual speech, and attacks certain parties in his essay.

– He has a very jaded view and it is present in his work, most likely caused by the state of his life (see above).

 

Audience:

-He most likely seems to be speaking to his peers, since he does not speak in an explanatory tone, but a casual one.

 

Intent:

-He is trying to convince his peers that something is amiss in society.

-He is trying to show that the economy is broken.

 

Message:

– Laissez-faire, laissez-passer! does not help the common people.

– “Will they bear their misery patiently because statistical calculations prove that in future years they will have food to appease their hunger?”

 

Author:  Karl Marx

– Born May 5th, 1818 in Trier, died March 14th 1883 in London.

– Born into a wealthy middle-class family, was educated at the universities of Bonn and Berlin.

– Moved to France, but was later exiled to England.

-Briefly wrote fiction, as well as nonfiction.

 

Context:

– His views and works were extremely liberal at the time, and he had issues publishing his works.

– Was active during the rise of Communism, and wrote in its favor.

-His works quickly started dramatic changes in Europe (especially after publishing the Communist Manifesto in 1848).

 

Language:

– Can be rather poetic at times, with repetition commonly seen in poems.

– Use of philosophical rhetoric commonly seen in Plato and Socrates’ work.

– Very explanatory, often repeating points.

 

Audience:

– Most likely geared towards a lower demographic (such as laborers), because of the repetition and explanatory tone.

 

Intent:

– To show that Capitalism cheapens the worth of the lower-class worker, by forcing them to produce more and better products with no regard for themselves.

 

Message:

-Laborers are being alienated by their work, and are becoming more barbaric because of this.

 

Division of Labor

Posted on by

In An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, the author is pro Division of Labor. The author begins by giving a background of each chapter and reciting the powers of labor and produce. Throughout this excerpt, he goes into detail of the benefits of Division of Labor. One of these benefits include working together as a team, this allows people to help one another and complete more items than if working alone. Another benefit the author states is that a countries’ supply depends on its annual labor. Its annual labor is the only source of income. This passage discusses the vast improvements of labor and distribution. In this system, the poor are included, unlike an individual system where each is on their own. This allows for the opportunity for many to have a job and support their families rather than abandoning the old and young to fend for themselves.

The author also argues that when working in a separate environment, as farming, the expenses increase and production is less. The author states that by “making this one purpose his sole purpose in life, he is able to produce more than others who don’t have this one particular skill”. This enables those who work best at the skill to complete more than someone who does not have prior knowledge about the skill, allowing for speedy manufacturing.

The author describes those in a position above the workers as “philosophers, people who only observe work but do not partake in machinery”. The author considers this a governed society with inspirational leaders. This allows the workers to be convinced that they are getting the better hand of the deal. It is explained as accommodation and supply. The author finds Division of Labor to be a positive aspect of the work environment. It is a pyramid system with the workers at the bottom, with the least amount of say.

Revolutionary Works: Words that stir the populous’ blood

Posted on by

Wherever there is revolution, there are artists and intellectuals working behind the scenes to rouse the people into action. In colonial America, it was “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine and “Concord Hymn” by Emerson. In revolutionary Russia, Dmitry Furmanov was responsible for creating the call to action in his novel “Chapaev.” Typical of the World War I era, it glorifies battle and celebrates the power of youth. Furmanov depicts “courageous” young men “indissolubly linked together,” motivating Russia’s youth to respond to a higher calling ((Dmitry Furmanov, Chapev, (1923)). Chapaev is unique in Russia’s class-based society as it calls to everyone; the misfits, the poor, the hungry, the handsome, and the well-to-do are all welcome under Chapeau’s watchful eye. Furmanov creates a romanticized story where even the peasants can find food and happiness – appealing to the many who had nothing under the current regime and inspiring even more to rise up and fight.
Similarly, the poem “We Grow Out of Iron,” by Aleksei Gastev, also uses powerful language and wording to create images of the weak becoming powerful and overthrowing their oppressors. Gastev, himself a factory worker, manipulates the vision of the poem by choosing a relatively low level of syntax, while still planting the idea of revolution in a manner that relates to the audience. His word choice, particularly in the fourteenth line, when he says “I too am growing shoulders of steel and arms immeasurably strong,” empowers the people ((Aleksel Gastev, We Grow Out or Iron, (1914)). “I too” has a twofold meaning – not only is he participating in the revolution, just like the commoners, the sailors, and the peasants, but he is struggling, yet overcoming, setting the expectation that others will too. Authors like Furmanov and Gastev were the driving force behind the revolution – not the revolution of the intellectuals, who tended to plan without action, but the revolution of the people, who stirred at the calling of freedom and the end of tyranny.