Tag Archives: communism

Antiquated Modernity

Posted on by

Hoffman defines the traditional sense of modernity as liberal democracy and industrial capitalism. This idea or narrow concept of modernity, in my mind, proceeds from our desire to clearly identify the others: to separate the proverbial tares from the wheat. However, in our insatiable egotism and self justification we construct rigid lines of demarcation by which to separate ourselves from the others. Hoffman deconstructs this archaic version of modernity to define the more fundamental, rational sense of true modernity.

The key lies in the governments evolved relationship with the people. During the modern era, people became the focus of governments. All forms government, fascist, democratic, communist, or socialist, invested significant time and resources into the lives of the people. I really enjoyed following Hoffman’s clear logic and connections between democratic and communist governments, seemingly polar government structures. The author argues that perhaps the most distinguishing factor between government types are their goals. Communist or fascist governments heavily invest in citizens’ lives to further a particular agenda or cultivate a certain national mindset. Conversely, Hoffman says that although liberal democracies intrude on person liberties, just like communist or socialist states, they do so for the national good without pursuing “grand ideological claims.” I struggle with this argument. Although there are certainly differences between government types, the lines are not so clear.

All governments absolutely try to disperse perceived national values through their institutions, programs, and other actions. During the Second World War the United States conducted immense advertising campaigns to rally support for the war and also demonize any anti-war or American sentiments, whether actively antagonistic to the United States or simply ideological. Perhaps I am just naturally inclined to distrust governments, but I believe that all powerful organizations are concerned with their own history and the way it will be told.

I realize the article largely pertains to the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century; nevertheless, I still think about the direction western society is now traveling. European countries, and slowly the United States as well, are starting to adopt more social or collective policies and programs. This is not a criticism, only an observation on how the tares and wheat are becoming obsolete upon our embracing of a new form of modernity.

Truman’s Ulterior Motives

Posted on by

3 Observations

1. In his address to Congress to request aid for the reconstruction of Greece and Turkey due to the damages done during the Second World War, President Truman justified his request by saying that if the United States didn’t provide assistance to these countries, another power could potentially impose upon their respective sovereignty. He omitted what seemed to be his true intention: the inhibition of communist ideas. He seemed to believe that if the United States did not act promptly, the Soviet Union would instead try to impose communism upon these nations, even though he did not once mention the Soviet Union by name. His true intention was to instill democracy before the USSR could instill communism.

2. It is not uncommon for the President of the United States to request that Congress work with the Executive rather than against it. While most of the time this plea falls upon deaf ears, Truman managed to win the approval of the Legislature with his appeals to preserving the sovereignty of the two countries. He managed to do so with a variety of tactics, the most prominent of which was appealing to Congress’s sympathies with the Greek people, of whom he says “Greece is not a rich country. Lack of sufficient natural resources has always forced the Greek people to work hard to make both ends meet. Since 1940, this industrious and peace loving country has suffered invasion, four years of cruel enemy occupation, and bitter internal strife.”

3. I must provide credit for the following point to its source: (http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/truman-doctrine). This page brought up an interesting point which I felt compelled to include in this post: the Truman Doctrine changed the United States’ policy on foreign involvement. While normally the US tended to keep out of international affairs prior to World War II, Truman’s call for aiding Greece and Turkey caused the US to become more active in shaping the global economy and network.

2 Questions

1. In what way(s) might the Truman Doctrine be considered a factor of the initiation of hostilities between the Soviet Union and the United States?

2. Upon reading the Brezhnev Doctrine, do you think it is a response/reaction to the Truman Doctrine?

Interesting Idea

The Truman Doctrine was seemingly the United States’ first attempt to impose democracy in the Middle East. Not only does the United States provide aid to Turkey in order for the nation to rebuild, but one year after he issued this request to Congress, the United States became the first country to officially recognize the sovereignty of Israel. In quick succession, President Truman established relations with two sovereign nations in this region of the world, perhaps to further prevent the spread of communism.

Stalin’s Speech at a Meeting of Voters of The Stalin Electoral District

Posted on by

Three Points:

1. Stalin started his speech with the discussion of the nature of the two world wars, that the first world war was mainly a result of rising capitalism countries’ demand for redistribution of  “sphere of influence” and that the second world war was one of anti-fascism and liberation.

2. He then brought up the point that the second world war served as a test of the Soviet Union in many ways. Constructed as a multi-national union, Soviet Union succeeded in muting the sceptic who doubted if the multi-nation political institution could survive. Soviet Union’s winning of the war also solidified the power of communism.

3. The latter part of the speech focused on the future development of Soviet Union by the next five-year plan. With the heavy industry developing first than light industry and collective agriculture instead of capitalist one, the Soviet Communist party aimed to restore the productivity to pre-war level at a relatively short time and with high efficiency.

Two Questions:

1. If the pre-war five-year plans were focusing on heavy industry as a preparation for the war, why did Stalin and the communist party still focus on heavy industry after the war? It was a quicker route for the GDP to go up but not for the overall living standard of people.

2. It seems that collectivism works quite efficiently towards a collective goal, usually a expanding one (politically or economically). But it lacks the ability to recover once it crashed (Germany, Soviet Union, even Japan during the bubble burst in the 1990s). Do you agree that eventually it is individualism that propel the society forward? Meaning, should people eventually increase their own productivity solely based on personal goal instead of a collective one?

One Observation:

The planned economic policy works against the “natural” development of industrialization by developing heavy industry first. In a time when there is no war, heavy manufacture can result in excess capacity since no one will be using the products once they are made. Stalin described a prospective future in terms of national productivity, but how this prosperity turns into individual’s life is not clear. Nevertheless, Stalin succeeded in winning votes by his plan for the country.

Pope Leo XIII and the “Rerum Novarum”

Posted on by

AUTHOR- Pope Leo XIII, who served from 1878 to 1903

CONTEXT- toward the end of the second Industrial Revolution; this was when Communism began to gain momentum as a viable alternative to capitalism, which led to Leo’s response in the Rerum Novarum

LANGUAGE- instructive, meant to explain how Communism infringes on justice and freedom as the Catholic Church describes it; points out that it can be sinful

AUDIENCE- members of the Church, whom he addresses at the beginning of the document

INTENT- to prevent the spread of Communism, because it goes against human nature by eliminating the concept of private property and privacy

MESSAGE- Communism is harmful to the human nature because a human must be able to own (or invest in) property in order to make a living, to survive. He argues that when all property is controlled and distributed by the state, it harms the nature of humans in a number of ways, including destroying structure of the home (by eradicating parental authority) and controlling many aspects of a person’s life. He says that humans predate the idea of the state, and as such can survive naturally without state intervention. As a species, humans have always found necessary the idea of private property in order to survive. Communism, in this way, violates human nature.

Marx and the Communist Manifesto

Posted on by

Marx delved into the many details describing why the current system was failing and was always bound to fail. He repeated the themes of antagonism and struggle. The proletariat was always in a losing battle against the bourgeoisie. He pointed out that the free market had gotten out of hand. A candle lit by the bourgeoisie had turned into a wildfire, which burnt down cities. The destruction did not stop at borders or coasts. The  system caused barbaric nations to be dependent on civilized ones just as the workers were dependent on the ruling class. After listing the problems he claimed he had a solution: communism. He outlined his plan in ten points which included abolition of private property and centralization of industry and credit to the state among others.

As in any quality piece of writing, Marx addressed a few potential counterarguments. He stated that the proletariat already were stripped of everything to be abolished in his plan, so only the bourgeoisie would be hurt. He claimed that workers gained nothing. He forgot to consider however that in the current system, the proletariat did not even gain the most basic human needs of food, water, and shelter if they did not work. In communism, one could not become wealthy through laziness, but neither could he become wealthy though hard work. If he was lazy, he would at least not die of starvation, dehydration, or lack of shelter for the most part because all of that was provided by the state. Therefore, the easiest option with the highest benefits was to work very lightly. Human nature always causes people to seek the lowest cost highest benefit option.

Interchangeable Parts

Posted on by

“These workers, forced to sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, and all the fluctuations of the market.”

I chose this passage because it relates directly to the readings and class topics that have been discussed over the past week. It expresses very similar ideas to those of Oastler and Heine, and the tones are very similar to Marx’s estranged labor.

Marx notes the differences between classes and the shifts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The lower tiers of the middle class, the tradespeople, morphed into the proletariat as technology made their trades obsolete. Marx argues that capitalism is inherently unstable and unsustainable because it wears down the proletariat and continues to exhaust its resources with no sign of slowing down. The members of the working class, regardless of age and sex, are treated as interchangeable parts in the capitalist system; they are a “commodity like every other article of commerce.” They are susceptible to all the uncertainties of the market and the demand for labor. Technology was improving rapidly and replacing human workers with gears and steam; not only was the worker treated as a disposable commodity in the market, he was also not guaranteed any security in his job whatsoever.The worker was paid barely enough wages to maintain his life. He did not earn enough money to acquire any personal property; he had to live under the roof of a landlord who exploited him further. This is Marx’s main argument for the abolition of private property rights. The vast majority of the population was already absolutely unable to acquire any private property, so this is in reality not a right at all, but a privilege reserved for the upper classes.

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

Posted on by

The Communist Manifesto is the crowning achievement of Karl Marx.  The groundwork for the economic and social aspects of communism.  Marx, a German philosopher and economist was extremely discontent with the results of the industrial advancements made with capitalism.  As a reaction to the rise in capitalism, Marx created The Communist Manifesto.  The bourgeois continued to separate themselves from the working class economically due to the lack of attention paid to worker’s conditions, as well as extremely low wages. Marx saw the economic elite become too powerful.  Marx uses a unique mixture of analytic commentary, as well as romantic diction to convey his message.  Beginning with the distinction of the proletariat (the working class) and the bourgeois (the economically wealthy) and how the bourgeois use and exploit the hard labor the proletariat put into their work, as well as the holding of a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth.  Marx eventually calls the “workers of the world” to unite as one, as reclaim what is rightfully theirs, most likely by force.

The most vital passage within The Communist Manifesto is the ten measures in which all communism can be based upon.  These pillars of Communism are Marx’s integral points.  Starting with the “Abolition of property in land and confiscation of ground rents to the State”, Marx’s points are each a unique response to the problems that Marx’s exposes in the beginning of the manifesto.  Marx concludes that if these points are followed, the proletariat and bourgeois class distinctions will cease to exist, thus the public will lose political character.  This is vital to the existence of the society, as there would no longer be any conflict among individuals on a political scale.

Do you agree with Marx’s ten points?  Would you add or remove any while still maintaining the core of communism?  Do you think this type of society would ever be possible?

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.

Norris and the Role of Luxury in Communism

Posted on by

When readers are first introduced to the character of Arthur Norris, he is offered a cigarette by William Bradshaw, a luxury reserved more or less “for the common folk”. As we see his character develop, the amount of wealth he flaunts becomes greater and greater, bragging about having a bedroom in Paris that he customized himself and worth a small fortune. Later he goes on to show this wealth with the amount of servants and the quality of decoration his house has to Bradshaw, which in turn helps characterize him for the reader.

These characterizations are important because than Isherwood goes against the stereotypes of communism. By making this rich socialite a communist, Isherwood was not only showing the rapidly changing politics of German society, but was showing the hypocrisy that the rich intellectuals were living in the Wiemar Republic. These folks truly were disconnected with the realities of Germany at the time. Even though people such as Norris were attempting to solve reform and improve living conditions, they failed to realize that this radical reform would never occur and ultimately, their attempts at change were actually hampering the working classes cries for help. While Norris thinks he is helping workers like those oppressed in China, in reality he is part of the problem, delaying any chance of democratic reform and allowing the Nazis to eventually rise to power.

Communism, Nazism, and the Berlin Stories

Posted on by

In The Berlin Stories, author Christopher Isherwood characterizes the social and political climates in Germany during the rise of Nazism through a series of vignettes centered around William Bradshaw, “a young bourgeois intellectual,” and Arthur Arnold, an older Englishman with subversive Communist sympathies. (Isherwood, 64)  The first one hundred pages of the novel recount the pair’s activities and correspondence centered around the city of Berlin.  Each chapter puts forth several small fragments of interwar Germany with regard to everything from its nightlife (“‘Oh, you mean those whores on the corner there'”) to its foreign policy (“‘The workers demand assistance for the hundreds of thousands of Chinese peasants now rendered homeless'”), ultimately creating an anecdotal portrait of this dynamic period in European history. (Isherwood, 34, 47)

I found the narrative prose style in Isherwood’s work both refreshing and compelling.  It is, in my opinion, always more interesting to absorb history through stories (even those of realistic fiction) and case studies than to simply comb through facts and data.  However, this style can sometimes allow the reader to develop sympathies for particular characters and/or demographics that may not have arisen in more formal historical writing.  Do you feel that the narrative style of Isherwood and other authors like him (e.g. Silone, Solzhenitsyn) can be problematic for readers for this and/or other reasons?