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.