Tag Archives: Socialism

Reassessing Socialism

Posted on by

Eduard Bernstein composed “Evolutionary Socialism” as a response to the stigma the “Communist Manifesto” had created, while also addressing the problems he saw with this specific work.  Almost fifty years after the “Communist Manifesto” had been published, Bernstein saw many of Marx’s predictions to be incorrect and out of touch with the changing world.  Bernstein came from modest means as a jewish child growing up in Germany, which perhaps helped lead him against capitalist economics.  He starts off by addressing how the average person does not really understand the ramifications of socialism and would eventually end up repeating some random phrase he heard on the street ((Evolutionary Socialism, 1899)).  This jab at socialism’s integrity leads to Bernstein’s so called ‘reassessment of socialism’.

Bernstein agrees with Marx on the conditions that lead to socialism.  He sees the alienation of the worker from production and the hurtful effects of the boom and bust system.  However, Bernstein believes socialism must take control as a political party rather than Marx’s inevitable call for revolution.  This is the basis for Bernstein’s idea of democratic socialism.  He believed a revolution would be filled with inconsistent views, as the working class at this time had become much more varied in their political and economic means ((Evolutionary Socialism, 1899)) .  An agricultural worker would probably not have the same opinions as a factory worker, which in return could lead to more fighting in the end.

Bernstein also critiques Marx’s idea that a government would be able to manage every worker, business and land holding.  To nationalize the entire state would require a huge government that would need to be filled with high talent for management ((Evolutionary Socialism, 1899)) .  I find Bernstein’s critique on this a little puzzling because he does not actually offer a solution to this problem.

Is England’s motto of fending for yourself a deterrent to socialism?  Do you believe a socialist political party would be more successful than a revolution?  Do you agree that a government would not be able to manage such a complex economy?

 

 

Come one, come all

Posted on by

Aleksandrov and Simkov’s 1936 work of “Circus” combines the elements of farce, comedy, vaudeville, and melodrama in order to produce a ubiquitously enjoyable, light-hearted tale of heroism in the face of adversity laced with prominent themes of existing world politics and the Soviet socialist cause. The simple plot revolves mainly around the exploits of a fictitious American circus performer, Marion Dixon, and her engagements in love and peril as she tries to seek sanctuary in the Soviet Union in an attempt to escape the bigoted derision she faces in America at the cause of her being the mother to a black child. The film opens with her running away with the diabolical Franz von Kneishitz, a German theater agent with a visage and ideology blatantly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s, and his assistant, a farcical cane-wielding Charlie Chaplin-esque performer.

Throughout the film, we can clearly see Marion’s avid willingness to transform into a joyful member of the Soviet Union with the utilization of the cannon performance as a metaphor. She begins the performance by singing about how she would desperately like “to get to the sky, but the stars are just too high.” ((Circus, Grigori Aleksandrov and Isidor Simkov, 1936.)) Once she is fired from the canon, she lands on the moon contraption and sings of “knowing no fear, knowing no plight”, essentially paralleling the envisioned view of the socialist utopia, in which every individual would receive equal happiness. Marion continuously dreams of a better life in an unprejudiced Russia, but is constantly thwarted by Kneishitz. He himself is threatened by the Russian circus performers who wish to build an even better cannon, reflecting the intrinsic Soviet desire to modernize, industrialize, and become a dominant world power.

Marion also proceeds to fall in love with a fellow performer, Martynov, who retains the image of the flawless, handsome, and swashbuckling Soviet man. The two play the piano and sing a song glorifying the country: “Our border stretching far and wide / Walk our man, a master of his country / In his heart, and overwhelming pride / Each day is better than the previous one”. ((Ibid.)) Martynov is the antithesis to Kneishitz, who struggles to control Marion while the former strives to free her, as the two face off in a cannon-building competition. This conflict may also be seen as a Soviet disapproval of Hitler’s ideals of Nazi racism and the perfect “Aryan” race. Towards the end of the film, Kneishitz proclaims Marion as a criminal when he reveals her black son to the crowd, whom he expects to denounce her. On the contrary, they gleefully accept her and the child, passing him around while singing a collective lullaby between the hands of many different ethnicities, as a reflection of the socialist national policy of korenizatsiya. In a dazzling scene of synchronized choreography, Marion is surrounded by light, and looks up to Martynov, who stands with blazing torches in his hands upon an immaculate stairway, a scene resembling religious Christ-like imagery of ascension to heaven and paradise. The film concludes with a prideful, militaristic march of the circus performers in uniform that eventually evolves into a procession donning flags of Lenin, Marx, and Stalin, emphasizing the central political message of promoting revolutionary socialist and egalitarian ideals.

Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

Posted on by

The CNN documentary on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan unflinchingly exposes both Soviet and Western influences in the destabilization of the region. What was supposed to be a quick occupation that would end in a few weeks, the Soviet invasion lasted for a decade. After Muslim extremists in the region rebelled against sweeping socialist policies in Afghanistan, a rebellion ensued. This rebellion was in part influenced by the fact that Soviet policies were ignorant to Afghanistanian culture and Muslim practices and by the fact that these policies were threatening the control of the Muslim religious leaders. As the political and social unrest reached its height, the Soviet-friendly prime minister assassinated and replaced with a power-hungry dictator, Soviet authorities decided to get militarily intervene. The United States saw this as a threat – Jimmy Carter even went far enough to say that this move threatened American national security and that he was considering unleashing nuclear weapons as a response to this. Thus, the United States began its funding and support of the  the Islamic anti-Soviet jihadist group (which was referred to as ‘mujahideen’).

What was interesting was about the documentary was the fact that many American officials explicitly stated that the war in Afghanistan was fueled by American covert operations which supplied arms and training to the mujahideen. One representative said that this was “our war paid with [Afghanistanian] blood”. What was CNN’s bias in presenting the information like this? Was this admittance of direct US manipulation and destabilizing aid one of owning up for America’s action?

The documentary also exposes the ultimate chaos of the US-USSR proxy war. An American official smugly admits that American troops acquired Soviet weapons from Czechoslovakia, China and Egypt because of the alleged materialistic interests that outweighed their socialist priorities. This goes to show how the vision of socialism was failing in the Soviet Union and how intent the United States was to bleed the Soviet Union dry. The unfortunate and truly tragic aspect of this point in history is that this vindictive and disorganized action was fought on foreign land and radically disrupted a religious and cultural country.

Redefining Adolf Hitler (Just a Little Bit)

Posted on by

Adolf Hitler is one of the most controversial and despised individuals in human history, considered by some to be an anti-Christ. Certainly, he most definitely did some awful things; he started wars with other countries, which caused WWII, and he perpetuated the Holocaust. However, there are certain parts of his story that get left out in popular knowledge. For one thing, Hitler himself was not even born in Germany, but rather, the declining Austro-Hungarian Empire. Because of the state of the Habsburg Dynasty, Hitler, along with many youths like him, placed more support in adjacent Germany, with whom they felt a kinship. Therefore, his early years instill in him a huge amount of nationalist ideals. Among his other early struggles included poverty and living as a bohemian, differences with his father, and rejection from art school twice. It was not until WWI that he turned his life around, in which was a huge war hero. He was awarded the Iron Cross, First Class – an extremely high honor for his rank. Hitler valued his war experiences quite highly, but was shocked by Germany’s “defeat.” Looking for answers, perhaps it is not too surprising that when going undercover to infiltrate the German Workers’ Party (the precursor to the Nazi Party), he became attracted to their ideas. In fact, many of the ideas that the party perpetuated were similar to what he grew up hearing and living by.[1]

Aside from the context, Hitler appears to be similar in many ways to that of his popular image. Many of the points made in the pamphlet follow common knowledge: he was anti-Semitic, he was pro-Aryan race. However there were a few odd parts in his writing that really stood out. First, Hitler held a very strong view on education, and judging from the extent to which he goes into it on Point 20, he intended to make sure it went well. In thought, this could be the precursor to the Hitler youth, but at least it demonstrates a priority in equal education opportunity not held by many today. It was also intriguing to read about his high placement on physical education and gymnastics. In many ways, it’s a sneaky way of preparing students/children for war, similar to many Communist Chinese programs during the Mao era. The reading relates to past ideas as well, such as Fichte’s belief in shared culture leading to nationalism and borders, Herder’s belief that different groups should not mix, and Mussolini’s point that the state should mean everything (statist), with the “people” being an extension of that state.

[1] “Adolf Hitler.” Wikipedia. Accessed March 31, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler.

Fascism and Mussolini

Posted on by

Once an avid supporter of socialism, Benito Mussolini became one of the most significant contributors in the creation of fascism. In What is Fascism (1932), he aimed to address the Italian people and bring forth how beneficial this new political movement would be for their country. In response to World War 1 and its appalling violence, fascism was intended to out-date movements like traditional conservatism, Marxism, and especially liberalism. It used aspects of socialism, but also reminds me of nationalism in some ways, due to the stresses in pride and unity. Mussolini penned, “The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State.” Overall, this right wing movement was due to WW1, and Mussolini was an integral part of this said movement.

Fascism and Mussolini

Posted on by

Author: Benito Mussolini began his political life in the limelight as a socialist, known for his use of violence. He later created fascism, a new political movement.

Context: The fascist party posted this document in order to show their power. At this time, fascism did not have a clear context, so this was published in order to persuade people to join the fascism party.

Language: The wording of this is pretty clear and easy to understand because he wanted many people to be able to understand what he was saying. He is also trying to persuade people.

Audience: The document is addressed to the general public of Italians in order to persuade everyone to join fascism.

Intent: He is intending to spread and promote the ideas of fascism to the Italian people in attempt to stay in power.

Message: Mussolini was attempting to show the people of Italy that they should join fascism, and that it was a good idea for Italy.

Do you think Mussolini’s idea of fascism was successful?

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/399484/Benito-Mussolini/5090/Dictatorship

Mussolini & Fascism

Posted on by

Mussolini was a huge contributor in the creation of fascism. Initially being a supporter of socialism, Mussolini changed his view when he was thrown out of the Italian Socialist Party for not believing in neutrality during World War I. Mussolini became prime minister of Italy in 1922 following the March on Rome and immediately started the fascist movement. With the onset of fascism, people were still perplexed by what this term actually meant. This document was written 10 years after Mussolini had already been in power in order to try to give people a legitimate definition of fascism and convince them of its benefits. This language of this document is very straightforward. It is simply a definition of what fascism entails. The audience of the document is all of Italy and possibly to the rest of Europe. He wanted to convince Italy of the benefits of fascism and why it was better, and also hoped that other countries would adopt this ideology. He intended to promote fascism in order to keep it going and wanted to explain why it was the best option available.

What is Fascism?

Posted on by

AUTHOR: Benito Mussolini started out as a strong advocate for socialism and was imprisoned multiple times for his promotion of strikes and the use of violence.  He earned the reputation of a potential revolutionary with incredible rhetorical skills.  Because he has such a strong background with socialism, many elements are prevalent in fascism.

CONTEXT: Mussolini had already been in power for ten years while writing this.  Although fascism had been in place for years, it lacked a clear definition and people were unsure if they were benefitting from this system at all.  To persuade the people of the benefits of fascism, the party published this document to prolong their time in control.

LANGUAGE: The language of this document is very straightforward and direct.  Mussolini is concise, getting straight to the point.  However, their is also some elements of persuasion throughout the piece as he is writing to convince the people to keep this method of government in place.

AUDIENCE: This document is most likely directed towards as many people of the Italian population as possible.  As stated before, the context of the publication date requires Mussolini to persuade the population into keeping fascism.

INTENT: Mussolini’s intent is to promote Fascism throughout Italy and allow people to gain a better understanding of what it truly is.  By publishing the true definition of fascism, Mussolini promotes the idea even more, allowing him and fascism to stay in power.

MESSAGE: Mussolini’s message was that fascism was the best choice for Italy at this moment.  Mussolini displays all the benefits fascism will offer for Italy in order to maintain his power.

For Discussion: How big of an impact did Mussolini’s experience with socialism have on his later work with fascism?

((http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Critical_Analysis_of_the_Doctrine_of_Fascism))

((http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/399484/Benito-Mussolini/5090/Dictatorship))

What Makes a Revolution

Posted on by

In Lenin’s What Makes a Revolution, he discussed the differences between the economic and socialist view of a revolutionary. His friend, an economist, discussed revolutionaries in terms of trade unions and mutual aid societies. However, a true revolutionary, in the eyes of Lenin, is far more than a union member. Unions, while they may be illegal, still have certain standards they must uphold. In addition, unions have goals such as improving wages or working conditions, but they do not seek to change to system entirely. Revolutionaries, seek to create radical change, and must operate in secrecy. Revolutionaries are not simply men who are angered by current conditions. Rather, they are men trained in the art, so to speak, of revolutions. They have practice in spreading the revolutionary message, while keeping the organization itself as secretive as possible. Revolutionaries need the support of the working class, although revolutionary leaders are necessary to organize the outrage and make the revolution a success. Choosing specific leaders may seem undemocratic, although Lenin believed establishing a core group of leaders was needed to accomplish the goals of a revolution. A revolutionary may be involved in labor politics, but union organizers are not necessarily revolutionaries. Revolution, not factory work, must be a revolutionary’s full-time occupation. Training is necessary in establishing an effective revolution because outrage needs to be harnessed and exploited in order to affect change. A worker who protests the long working conditions will be appeased by a ten-hour workday. A true revolutionary, however, cannot be appeased by minor changes, and will continue to protest until the system has been dramatically changed.

 

Who really likes living in a communal apartment anyways???

Posted on by

The idea of the USSR as a “communal apartment” presents the idea of socialism and the Soviet state in an analogy that is easy to grasp and remember ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 414))). The “communal apartment” ties in with the author’s thesis of the creation within the Soviet Union and the “Bolsheviks efforts on behalf of ethnic particularism.” Consistent efforts is seen in promoting group rights even at the cost of not harmonizing with rights of the proletariat, in contrast showing hostility to the rights of the individual ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 415))). Part of the whole socio-political experiment is summed up in the following quote, “ ‘The world’s first state of workers and peasants’ was the world’s first state to institutionalize ethnoterritorial federalism, classify all citizens according to their biological nationalities and formally prescribe preferential treatment of certain ethically defined populations” ((David A. Hollinger, How Wide the Circle of the ‘We’? American Intellectuals and the Problem of Ethos since World War Two) American Historical Review 98 no. 2, (1993), pp. 317-337))). These nationalities would make up the separate rooms of the Soviet Federation.

This idea at first may seem contrary to socialism. Even early socialist closely tied to Lenin disagreed with this approach. Yet here Stalin and Lenin both agreed on this idea. To be clear we need to differentiate between “national culture” and “national traits, interest and responsibilities”. The USSR’s makeup consists of various groups such as Ukrainians, Russians, and Georgians whom each possessed individual peculiarities that made them such, national traits. Thus, these groups viewed as separate nations, possessed rights ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 416))). Acknowledging that each group had its own unique rights played a key part in unity of the federation. Stalin stated, “Nations are sovereign and all nations are equal” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 416))). Equality in no way means that all nations are equal in size, power, economy or in their development whether “civilized” or “backward”. “But all nations—indeed all nationalities no matter how “backward”—were equal because they were equally sovereign, that is, because they all had the same rights” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 416))).

This entire idea seems to be counter-intuitive. It railed against what many socialist viewed as an “‘philistine ideal.’ Lenin’s socialists had to “preach against [slogans of national culture] in all languages, ‘adapting’ themselves to all local and national requirements”” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), pp. 417-18))). Therein lies the crux of the issue why allow for nations within the federation.  It was a necessary evil to get individuals to adopt socialism, someone who was of the same language and background to support and perpetuate socialism. Now the locals view socialism as a nationally owned idea and not as an imposed idea of a different nation.  Lenin also came to realize that to gain the trust of these once former oppressed nations under tsarist control, recognition as a nation built confidence and trusts in the idea of the USSR and promoted the idea of acceptance to state socialism. This doctrine actually was successful through the 1930s. Nearly 200 separate national identities emerged with schools, periodicals and communities establish to support this grandiose effort. This required a massive bureaucracy to manage this system, requiring change of policy again.

Finally, “by the end of the decade most ethnically defined soviets, villages, districts and other small units had been disbanded, some autonomous republics forgotten and most “national minority” schools and institutions closed down…however…the ethnic groups that already had their own republics and their own extensive bureaucracies were actually told to redouble their efforts at building distinct national cultures.” The idea behind this was “in order to concentrate on a few full-fledged, fully equipped “nations” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), p. 445))). The purpose behind this idea was to promote culture to the various republics through the arts, which lasted until the demise of the USSR in an attempt to bring a cohesiveness to the state. Emphasis now is on a national language in addition to the language of each individual’s nationality to reaffirm this solidarity of state. Did this experiment work? The answer is summed up in the final word of the article where it states, “Seventy years after the X Party Congress the policy of indigenization reached its logical conclusion: the tenants of various rooms barricaded their doors and started using the windows, while the befuddled residents of the enormous hall and kitchen stood in the center scratching the backs of their heads [referring to the Russians]. Should they try to recover their belongings? Should they knock down the walls? Should they cut off the gas? Should they covert their “living area” into a proper apartment?” ((Yuri Slezkine, The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism) Slavic Review 53 no. 2, (1994), pp. 451-2))). So goes the social experiment, the Soviets seemed always to take the most convoluted way to get to a goal, ultimately the tenants final decision to flee the communal apartment passes judgment on this grand experiment.