Response to Charlie

In response to Charlie’s post about communism, I would say that Communism in its actual form was never even practiced in Russia for the exact reasons you mention.  I think the fact that Stalin found it legitimate to kill more peasants than should ever had been killed is a sign that Stalin wasn’t really a communist, but instead an authoritative dictator who had fantastically believed himself to be a communist, and therefore a representative of the people.  There were some communist aspects to Stalin’s regime, but I not feel it accurately reflects what communism is.  That being said, I also feel that Stalin is evidence of why communism can never actually work, cause something like Stalin will always prevent communism from actually working.  Why does Stalinesque things happen?  Because in no culture in the history of man has the poor and dejected people’s ever been helped to a point of comfort without simply turning them into rich people that take advantage of new poor people.  It’s a fatal flaw of living in a world where people are competitive and born with advantages.  There will never be an equilibrium that communism strives for, and this means that something like Stalin will always occur when communism is trying to found itself.  

Response to Charlie / Semi-Rant

In response to Charlie’s post about the economic policies of Keynes during the Great Depression, I would agree with the fact that it was truly World War II that brought the US out of their misery.  All the deficit spending Roosevelt had implemented, such as the public works organization that gave many people jobs, only helped put a temporary band-aid on the bleeding of the American people.  When Americans started to rally around the war effort, and the US needed strong manufacturing output in order to combat that behemoth Germany army, American’s economic fortunes changed.  What I think is interesting, is given all this, why did the Americans wait so long to join the war.  If turning America into a war state with tons of weapon manufacturing helped the economy, why didn’t they start doing this as soon as the Great Depression was getting bad and Hitler was slowly taking over Europe because England and France had no back bone.  Which brings me to another point, the fact that the British and French used appeasement to keep Hitler as bay makes me sick to my stomach.  I see not argument, except war fatigued, which is just a bad argument because an evil like Hitler does not fatigue, that can defend the British and French.  They should have mobilized their MILLIONS of colonial troops to their favor, borrowed money from everyone else in the war, and crushed Hitler, not let him start World War II.  Jesus….

Response to Mein Kampf

In regards to the reading in Mein Kampf, I am most struck by Hitler’s seemingly authoritative voice over the creation of race.  He seems to speak as though he was there when the Aryan race was created, and witnessed to the “culture-founding” aspects of that culture.  He offers to evidence to support any of his grand claims about different races, he simply states them as though they are simple facts of life, like one plus one is two.  What I do find interesting about his writing is his idea that inferior races are necessary for the advancement of higher races, and his idea that man came before the animal with regards to forced manual work.  Although I don’t agree wit the idea of an “inferior” race, I do understand what’s he’s talking about with regards to the importance of the conquered to the conqueror.  Most of Europe’s progress has been at the expense of different peoples around the world.  This doesn’t mean that Europeans are better than everyone else, they just have taken advantage of other’s to increase their own lot, something that although bad, is simply a matter of life.  People will always be exploiting others, whether it is through actual slavery or paid jobs.  In no way do I agree with Mein Kampf, but I do think that Hitler perceived something important when he noted the importance of inferior races for those races that needed to progress.  

World War II connected to the Video

The fact that World War II targeted more civilians than anyone cares to think about, in my opinion, is a result of the incredibly strong feeling on both sides of absolute conviction.  In the video we watched in class, I found the last point made by the speaker extremely powerful.  He talked about the idea that human’s should never seek absolute knowledge about anything, that there must always been unknowns.  He talked about this in reference to the fact that the atrocities committed during World War II were committed by people who had no doubt in their minds they were doing the right thing (referring to leaders here, I am sure there were people who did not like killing civilians, but it did it out of fear).  That’s what has always scared me the most about World War II, and the most severe atrocities around the world.  The people who follow through with them are always convinced they’re doing the right thing.  At the Nuremberg trials, many of the Nazi officials tried to come off as though they were just following orders, as seen here, but it was clear that during the actual war they, along with Hitler, had done what they did with conviction.  No one knows what compels people to feel as though they have a concrete understanding of what’s right or wrong, just or unjust.  All we know is that the power of certainty can never be overlooked.  Such as the war in Iraq, where America was so convinced it was doing the absolutely right thing, we failed to realize that our plan was flawed in many ways.   

Middle East and World War I

As my first post about Europe’s involvement in ht Middle East during World War I, I think it’s important to note that this is in no way the first time Europe has had its hand in the Middle East…. Obviously.   When the British and French decided to create spheres of influence in the Middle East, as noted in this article by NPR here , there were clear colonial intentions.  They were not planning on using the Middle East for their own war effort, only to leave it alone once they had won, even though that’s what they promised the Arabian states that would revolt in their favor.  It’s classic European form to offer self-determination as an incentive, only to somehow get around its actual manifestation once their mission has been accomplished.  This mentality is important for understanding Europe’s role in the Middle East because it has everything to do with how the European’s treated the people living there after World War I.  Their approach was much like Britain’s approach to India; use it as a trading beacon and market for products, an instant source of cash.  What’s ironic is the fact that winning World War I didn’t make England and France realize that imperialism, which had in some ways caused World War I, was probably not a smart move.  They instead continued in their old ways, a choice that many people in the Middle East still resent.  

A summary of the entire quarter.

I've decided that for my 25th post I'm going to sum of everything we've learned since winter break.  

In essence, Europe is in many ways like a human being.  Just as Freud talks of the different phases of a child's growth process where the child is fascinated with certain aspects of their world, only to grow more and be entranced by a different thing.  Europe is steadily moving through it's life, starting at infancy and growing.  I believe that the time periods we've just studied are the adolescent and young adult phases of Europe.  There was too much testosterone in Europe during this period, just as teenage and low twenties men have too much testosterone.  It was all about dominating other people, proving you were the greatest of the pack, making sure you were on the beneficial end of every deal.  This hyper-male state lead to the two most devastating wars Europe had seen up until that point, reflecting the volatile nature of men during their college years.  Along with that, kids in their 18-24 years try many new things, which is mirrored in the creation of socialism as a true practice and ultimately Russia's transformation.  And like all human beings, kids from 18-24 are always inclined to make bad decisions, as can be witnessed in the Treaty of Versaille.  

It might seem strange, but in many ways I think it works.  Currently Europe is a middle aged man, not really the focus of attention, but still wields power in his world.

Facets of Totalitarian Government

The handout we read about Totalitarian governments during class was interesting because it basically seemed as though there was no way to have a totalitarian government while still letting the people be happy.  Because those kinds of governments rely on invading the private sector of society, it's impossible for people to enjoy their lives.  The only people who are happy with the government are those that are receiving benefits from the government, which my nature cannot be the majority, but rather an extremely small majority.  

The ironic thing is that every single totalitarian government justifies their actions with the idea that everything they do is for the good of the nation.  How can this ever be true if the majority of the nation is left unhappy on principle?  If there was some way to have a totalitarian government that actually made everyone in the nation happy, it would be lead by the most unnatural of individuals (I am referring the idea that people with great power always end up making twisted decisions), or was not totalitarian to begin with.  

In Response to Declan Conroy

In response to this.  

I think that the phenomenon that Declan is describing in his post demonstrates that power of economics to influence other parts of a countries social issues.  Such as the current war in Iraq, where people who would normally support the war don't want to pay taxes for it in a crippling economic time.  In Germany, Germans were easily convinced by the words of Hitler because of the severe economic troubles the country was facing, even though many of those people did not feel that way during times when Germany was at its strongest economic times.   The extremely nationalistic aspect to Hitler's campaign was rooted in the economic troubles the country was facing, putting Germany back on the top of the world's nations, a list compiled from economic strength.  

Response to Declan Conroy

In response to this.

I agree with the idea that democracy is a better form of government, but I don't think that Fascism is not organic, I would instead say it is organic.  People, just as Hobbes argued, are naturally bound to form a government based off of protection, giving up their right to all things to one individual who maintains their right to all things, but then becomes responsible for those under his supervision.  Fascism is exactly this, minus the voluntary part, because it is one person ruling over many for their protection.  

Fascists argue that the reason why fascism makes sense is because it doesn't make sense to have everyone have a voice in government.  I believe that this is true to some extent, especially in a time where there were many people who were still uneducated.  According to Fascists, someone who can't read or right should not get to vote over an issue they don't understand, they should instead leave up to someone who does understand, such as the dictator.  When you think about it, a Fascist government would work perfectly if the leader wasn't a crazy dictator, but instead a reasonably minded person who listened to the public when necessary.  The problem is that no one with supreme power acts in a reasonable manner.  Fascism is not the dying corpse, but simply an alternative.  I do think that democracy is indeed a better form of government, but Fascism has elements that make sense and is in some ways an organic form of government.  

Response to Charlie Koch

In response to this.  

I completely agree with Charlie's point that Wilson was a little naive when he thought that something like the 14 points would work as he supposedly intended it to work.  If you really think about it, it's possible that Wilson knew from the beginning that the 14 points wouldn't work, but decided that to keep the US, and the other major powers, in the good light he would have to at least show an effort to create a perfect world for Europe.  

I think the biggest problem with the 14 points is that Wilson expects everyone to cooperate with it because most of the points somehow involve a complete transparency when it comes to economical and political functions within a state.  I think WWI proved that no such transparency can exist in the cut throat world of European Nations.  Europe during this period was a dangerous cooking pot for adventurous leaders because of technological advancements, and that Europe was in a dog eat dog mind state that meant the only way to get ahead was to force yourself down the throats of others. 

Response to Charlie Koch

In response to this

I agree that total war in one sense total war can be beneficial because everyone in society is forced to engage in some way, and therefore makes decisions that are more informed and more in-tune with the war effort.  But, I think that the brutality and death that happens during total war, because total war is only fought over things that are truly important, and therefore countries will not surrender until they have depleted nearly all their army, does not make it beneficial for societies.  It can be very crippling for a nation to lose an entire generation of young men in a war, especially if the war is lost.  There is still death in smaller wars, but not on the scale that total war implies.  

World War I summary kind of

World War I seemed to me like a war that in many ways could have been avoided, but in many other ways was entirely unavoidable.  As we talked about in class, there were many opportunities for either Germany or Russia to take diplomatic action to prevent what happened.  Russia could have told Serbia that they weren’t in the mood to go to war against the Germans, and the Germans could have told Austria-Hungary that forcing the issue in Serbia wasn’t worth total war with Russia.  But, on the other hand, it feels as though every single nation wanted to go to war.  Germany wanted to establish itself as a world dominate power and it did not want to back down from a fight with Russia, considering it had a stronger army.  Russia wanted to make amends for the fact that the Japanese had crushed it earlier in the century, and it seemed only logical that they were on a collision course for the Germans anyway. 

            The war itself was an example of what happens when countries with large standing armies are given technology to kill, but without a concrete understanding of those weapons potential.  The use of combined arms only came about towards the end of the war, and it helped with the stalemate aspect.  Most of the war was spent in the trenches, which became one of the deadliest yet fruitless ways of fighting the war.  Although, I do find it interesting how close the Germans came from actually winning the entire war, only stopped by the fact that they spent a little too much time working the political sides of things.

            The end of the war is simply what can be seen as the allies’ attempt at completely and utterly destroying Germany, which was a flawed plan because Germany is nearly impossible to destroy.  Germany had to take blame for everything and pay for everything, sending its already chaotic economy into absolute shambles and planting the seeds of severe embitterment.  I can’t figure out whether it’s the fact that World War II happened, or the fact that the treaty of Versailles was actually as bad as it seems to be and it seems only logical that someone like Adolph Hitler, who had completely extreme ideas, was able to take power in Germany. 

            

Summary, in a sense, response, in another sense

In response to Charlie's debate summary here.

In my debate, I have the privilege of defending the octoberist side of the debate with David. I would say that truly the only thing wrong with our position is exactly what Charlie articulates, the fact that we would some how have to convince the Tsar to give up part of his power to the parliament. I think the most effective way to do this would be through the military, but the problem with this is that the Tsar has control over the military, and using the miliarty, and thus violence, would mean that we would essentially contradict our argument that revolutoin would lead to the unncessary death of Russians. In the end, I think that the octoberist best option would be taking control of the process of selecting the next Tsar, which would give them the power to get someone more favorable to a consitutional monarchy into power. Who this would be in Russia, I have no idea, considering every single Tsar I've ever heard of in Russia was an egotistical and self-centered ruler.
I agree that the Bolsheviks have the best argument out of the to vik groups, because the Mensheviks just have a terrible position, considering they intend to wait for Russia to change, which would require hoping the Tsar doesn't get word of revolution for a long time, which is unlikely if not impossible. The idea of immediate revolution has the most persuasive tone, and I think that the "revolution is anti-Russian" is only valid if the ends don't out weigh the means, which I think would not be true in Russia.

Nietzsche and Freud

Nietzsche and Freud combined to create some of the most powerful philosophy in the history of the world, and both created theirs at a time period that was essentially a fertile growing ground for contextually bizarre thought. What I like most about Nietzsche, and I think has the most impact on how I approach life, is his idea that humans have to pursue their own course of creativity and throw tradition out of the window. I can’t really explain it, but this resonates with me strongly because I always get frustrated when people discredit things based simply off the fact that they’ve never happened before. I always tell myself that every single good idea that has ever been thought of was probably considered stupid by nine out of the ten people who first heard it. I agree with Cas, though, when he mentioned the fact that Nietzsche under estimates the power of community for an individual. Identity is something only present when other identities are involved, so it’s impossible for a person to truly create something unique by himself without automatically having it examined in the context of everything else, which is some sense ruins the individuality of the object. Humans are by nature social animals, and it’s hard to imagine a world where every person is pursuing something completely individual. My favorite aspect of Freud is his emphasis that we are driven by subconscious drives that we have no power over or knowledge of. It’s interesting to think about our bodies as ninety nine percent things we can’t control and one percent things we are able to understand and control. I think that the dream aspect of his philosophy is a little weird because I don’t understand how our subconscious would be so hard to understand when we’re awake, yet would present itself so clearly while we’re asleep. I think dreams are simply manifestations of our conscious mind distorting our current lives. When someone dreams about sex, I don’t think this is the subconscious sexual drive, but rather the brain, which probably thinks about sex when the person is conscious, distorting or exaggerating the conscious thoughts.

Darwinsim

Darwin’s theory of evolution and the subsequent idea of social Darwinism, are interesting to look at because Darwin’s theories were blatantly taken to mean something different from what Darwin intended. Darwin’s theory is based off of the idea that certain animals in a species are born with bizarre and inexplicable gene mutations that change their physical condition in some way. This change either helps them survive, or not, and those that are born with the gene mutation geared towards better survival are more likely to reproduce, thus changing the species and forcing the worse off of the two genotypes to become extinct. This is a natural process, and all species in the world are subject to it. Darwin’s ideas were controversial because he was essentially claiming the humans came from lower forms of apes, and that over time the human race was created because we were better at surviving than other apes. For obvious reasons people had a problem with this, considering most people did not want to believe that humans were not somehow unique in special, but simply part of a chain of evolution. What I find interesting about Darwin’s theory is what it means for the future of humans right now. I feel the humans have reached a point in life where we have invented enough things to keep people that would have otherwise died alive, so our population is simply increasing, instead of staying the same, Darwin’s theory had the idea of worse genotypes becoming extinct, but this idea no longer holds true for humans. If humans descended from apes, it only makes sense that there will be a future species descended from humans. What this species will be like, I don’t know, but I am not sure if there will be one.
Social Darwinism takes the idea of evolution and uses it as an excuse for people in positions of power to take advantage of those who don’t have power. It’s the idea that because someone was blessed with being able to doing something better than someone else, they have the right to exploit those under them. Darwin’s theory has nothing to do with a better species taking advantage of a worse species; his theory is based off the idea that the better species has a better chance at surviving, and therefore will reproduce more. It’s interesting to think that if you consider this aspect, those in the position of power, which are few, have the natural predator of the powerless mass, who had more power than the few rich if they choose to use it. This would mean that out of all the rich people, the ones most likely to survive, and therefore born with the better trait, would be those that catered to the powerless and kept them happy, and therefore no inclined towards revolution.

Three Russian Ideas

The three Russian stances towards revolution, represented by the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and the Octoberists, all have one thing in common. They all want to make Russia a better place for the common people, whether it by universal suffrage, better working hours, or simply limiting the power of the Tsar to protect the rights of individuals. The Bolsheviks present the most compelling argument, seeing as they strike the chord of revolution immediately, even if it means the death of innocent people for the sake of an entire nation. Ultimately, I feel that this strategy is the only one that would work in Russia, considering Tsars have never been inclined to give any power to the people, especially the common people. The only way to stop something like that is full force revolution when the Tsar is least expecting it, which would mean as soon as possible. The Mensheviks also call for revolution, but the fact that they see it as a gradual thing inhibits their ability to make a persuasive argument. In my opinion, hoping for gradual revolution in Russia would be like hoping spring’s eternal, seeing as Russia has historically crushed the first sings of revolution with such brutal force that our book continues to describe their army as crushing other peoples. As soon as the Tsar got word of revolution, it would be over, and the Mensheviks would be left to wonder why they hadn’t acted faster. The Octoberists make a good argument, but they lack a fundamental principle to changing government, which is that you have to get the people who are enjoying things the way they are to change. Calling for a constitutional monarchy would require someone convincing the Tsar that he should share power with the parliament, and considering the Tsar has power over the army, this is a very unlikely idea. I think that this dynamic in Russia speaks to the complexity Russia faced when it approached its government. The most important thing in my opinion, regardless of which stance is taken, is that Russians have to realize that they are Russians, not western Europeans. They don’t have to do what France or England did, Russia is different from these nations and always has been.

The Second Revolution

The second industrial revolution can be seen as the explosion of such thing as steel, electricity, and chemicals, but these three things are not the only important aspects to the time period. For me, the most important part was the creation of the corporation, because this reinforced the drive for capital that is important for booming economies, such as those in the time period. In my opinion, Rockefeller was an astounding businessman who managed to create the biggest oil company in the United States through his ability to vertically consolidate the oil industry in such a profound way. He literally owned everything in the process, which meant that he could control the prices on every step, allowing him to make huge profits. Some people many think that he is a horrible man because essentially destroyed competition and took advantage of the government, but I think that he shouldn’t be held accountable for his ability to manipulate the system to his favor. Had be blatantly broken laws at every corner, he definitely should have been punished, but all he did was take what was given to him and turn it into a huge economical empire. That being said, I do feel that it’s important to limit the size of huge corporations to keep the market from turning into the playground for a few extremely large firms, but I think it’s unfair to discredit the genius of someone like Rockefeller, who took lemons and made zillions of dollars off of them.