Mao Zedong: The Ideas that Secured his Power

Why was Mao Zedong so successful? Why did his ideas register so well with the Chinese people? To begin with, Mao Zedong was a shrewd Communist who knew how to rally the peasants behind a common cause. This led to widespread support. He believed in completely obliterating feudalism and imperialism in order to set up a country in which everyone was equal. While most of his beliefs evolved from Marxism- Leninism, he also took the idea of mass mobilization to the extreme. This led people to believe that they were really working for a cause and making a difference in society. He believed that if people have the ambition and determination to fight for what they believe in, then anything can be accomplished. The equality that he promoted between men and women attracted those who had been consistently oppressed by other forces such as Western influences. He delivered a complete revolutionary movement; at certain times, the Communist movement became too bureaucratic. However, Mao Zedong was able to successfully capture the people’s hearts through means such as extensive propaganda, particularly the Little Red Book. The people were looking for a stable leader that delivered really radical revolutionary ideas, which Mao Zedong promoted in the beginning. However, while his policies were very attractive to the people (as seen by the mass support from the Red Guards). Many of his policies later backfired, one being the Great Leap Forward that led to the Great Chinese Famine. This is an example of how a charismatic leader can finagle his way into the hearts of the people while simultaneously destroying the country he is ruling. Therefore, his ideas registered really well with the Chinese people, but ultimately did not help China. This was evident by the people's indifference after his death in 1976. Overall, Mao Zedong was a leader who masked a lack of beneficial ideas with rhetoric and propaganda. He was the main cause for China's downfall and unrest.

I did this about two weeks ago thinking I had to go on the class blog (since it was my turn)

http://revolutionshonors2010-1.blogspot.com/2011/03/gandhis-flaws.html

Communism vs. Capitalism

http://www.hermes-press.com/marx_engels2.jpg

I agree with The Communist Manifesto and Friederich Engels gels in regards to their views about class struggle, but Communism does have its setbacks. To begin with, they state that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (57). Classes are created as a result of birth, education, and socioeconomic factors. However, Marx and Engels condemn class differences; they hope to abolish the bourgeoisie and create a world of only proletarians. This does sound extremely appealing. The lack of classes would prevent internal rivalries and disagreements in governments. The number of wars would decrease, and people would settle into a state of peace and tranquility. However, Communism does not directly promote industrial advancement. Countries would become backwards and corrupt. One significant example of this is present- day China. They have a Communist government but still manufacture goods extremely well. While they maintain a somewhat capitalist approach in terms of their economy (a much better alternative to communism as will be discussed), their social system is completely backwards. Communism does not protect the people but actually oppresses them. Overall, while Communism seems like a potentially fantastic idea, in practice it is not very successful.

Furthermore, Marx and Engels wanted to destroy private property and capitalism. However, this is not natural, because people are designed to compete and strive to become better. Therefore, class differences (in a perfect meritocracy) are results of ambition. Destroying capitalism would obliterate all human determination. Progress would not be achieved with Communism and certainly not with socialism. Marx and Engels adopted an extremely cynical view of the rich, which is ironic considering that Engels was extremely wealthy. Throughout history, the wealthy have certainly prompted many problems. However, the answer is not Communism, a system that endorses laziness. Marx and Engels themselves even admit it, for they state, “…upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us” (86). Communism and socialism only promote lack of creativity and individuality. Work ethic would decrease. Overall, capitalism is necessary to stimulate progress.

As mentioned above, the use of Communism to destroy class struggles is admirable but not necessarily practical, especially considering the force of capitalism. Furthermore, unlike Marx and Engels, I do not believe that Communism is the end of dialectical materialism, for capitalism is inevitable. Throughout the centuries, countries have evolved from feudalism to capitalism and finally to Communism. This constant change in governments is called dialectical materialism. They state that during each era, people have resurrected their beliefs as “eternal laws of nature”. Therefore, they believe that human nature does not exist, because (according to the people) nature changes during each era. For example, I only believe that humans are naturally inclined to be competitive, because I live in a capitalist era, but someone living in feudalism would believe that serfdom is just a natural way of life. However, Marx and Engels believe that countries will evolve directly to communism, and I agree. An economic crash, for example, could easily catapult a nation into Communism, a system that fuses all the classes together and prevents any struggle. Communism does seem to be a perfect utopia, a place where equality and stability are promoted. However, while Communism may be inevitable, it is not the end of all change (as Marx and Engels believed). People would eventually become exasperated with the lack of ambition and individuality in society. This would prompt struggles that would eventually divide the people into classes, creating capitalism. In my opinion, the constant cycle between governments will inevitably lead to Communism, but that system will not last for very long.

Samuel Smiles: The Qualifications for Success

After reading an excerpt from Self- Help by Samuel Smiles, I can conclude that some of his theories can be applied to life while others cannot. His theories about the mentality of successful people is absolutely correct, but he would have needed to discuss more realistic scenarios in order to improve his book. Firstly, he believes that in order for one to move up in society and become more successful, one has to work much harder than the competition. I agree with this concept, because I believe that effort and determination are the only two qualities one truly needs in order to lead a fulfilling life. In addition, one must to be independent and not expect others to help them in life. This is extremely crucial to recognize, because success can only be determined by an individual. Others are not willing to spend the time to help others, and people should not look for outside help. Each person needs to have the initiative to go far in life. I think that each person must take it upon himself or herself in order to create proper results. In all, I agree with the mentality that Samuel Smiles suggests each person should have in order to achieve a better quality of life.

While I concur with Smiles’s principles about successful people’s mentality, he mentions that people should not blame the institution that they are currently in for their socioeconomic problems. In other words, if one is of low- birth and extremely poor, then that should not become that person’s excuse for poor performance. One must not blame his or her socioeconomic status for a lack of achievement. While I believe that each person must take ownership of one’s life in order to create one’s destiny, one should have a pragmatic view about the possibility of moving up in life. I believe that each person has a maximum limit of achievement that is determined by a variety of factors such as birth, economic status, and education. People with low birth, low economic status, and a lack of education do not have the same potential that intelligent, rich people generally have. In other words, not everyone can have the quintessential “rags to riches” story that is promoted in the media. For example, an Indian man living in a slum with a gang without education, money, or family is not going to become the next Bill Gates, simply because he does not have the means to do so. Yes, he may get a proper job, but he will not make a true name for himself. A person living in New York City who has at least a high school education and a decent job that can pay for night school has a better chance of becoming successful. The idea of limitations on accomplishments is applicable to life nowadays but also to the Industrial Revolution. The revolution had numerous dead- end jobs in factories where promotion was impossible; therefore, there was a crucial restriction against all working people. Not only are there limitations to success, but a person’s success should only be measured relatively to that person’s original lifestyle. Therefore, one who is extremely poor may do very well (considering where one came from) but might end up of living as a middle class person. Even though that person achieved a lot in his or her lifetime, that person is not considered extraordinarily successful, because he or she is not at the very top of the socioeconomic ladder. Furthermore, if one is born into an extremely rich family but does not value education and does not achieve much, then that person is not very successful in comparison to his or her initial position though he or she is at the top of the ladder. In all, the journey of hard work and perseverance is more important than the end result. Over all, I believe that there are certain limitations to achievements; therefore, a person’s accomplishments (which can only be reached through hard work and personal initiative) should only be measured in relation to his or her original lifestyle.

Picture:
http://www.steamindex.com/media/smilesstephenson.jpg

Constitutions

The 1801 constitution of Saint- Domingue written primarily by Toussaint L'Ouverture.
The 1791 constitution of France.
Obviously this is not my blog post for the Haitian Revolution.

Voodoo Raises Questions about Religion and Violence

Voodoo, an ecstatic rather than fertility based religion, is a combination of Roman Catholicism and the culture of the West African people. In August 1791, Dutty Boukman conducted a voodoo ceremony at Bois Caiman in order to deliver the enslaved blacks to freedom. Apparently, a woman started dancing “raucously” and sacrificed a pig. Then, on August 22, 1791, the slaves rose up against their masters. Voodoo was an integral part to the Haiti Revolution, because it provided people hope and it created unity. Now the question is whether or not Duke Boukman’s ceremony actually led to the enslaved people’s victory. Unfortunately, this ceremony has been widely misinterpreted throughout the years. Just recently, Pat Robertson said that the 2010 Haitian earthquake could be attributed to Haiti’s pact with Satan in 1791. He went on to explain that during the Haitian Revolution, the people agreed to serve Satan in return for their freedom and now they must pay consequences. While I do not agree with this statement, I must agree that ecstatic religions as a whole are not extremely ethical or civilized.

Voodoo appears to revert modern- day people to ancient practices. The barbaric tendencies, sacrifices, and additional archaic practices in voodoo promote violence. Furthermore, the principles of ecstatic religions contradict the basic scientific principles that govern the world.While I admire the principles that voodoo promotes such as health and protection of the family, the idea that spirits can enter a human body is dangerous and simply untrue. When the spirit consumes a person, that person is called a horse. It is this animalistic relationship between humans and voodoo that makes it extremely controversial. When should one draw the line during religious ceremonies? I believe that sacrifice and barbaric rituals should never be incorporated into a modern- day religion.

Violence and barbaric sacrifice are crucial elements to voodoo, though violence should never become an essential part of religion. Analyzing history clearly shows the unwanted consequences of this. For example, the Crusades, the wars fought in order to disperse Christian ideas, and the jihad of radical Muslims, which is used to justify violence, both have disastrous consequences. However, I believe that one should defend one’s right to the freedom of religion, because this is a basic human principle that each person needs. Fighting for one’s fundamental rights is more honorable than fighting in order to promote (and force) religion upon others.


http://kunsoo1024.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/bois-caiman.jpg

While violence and religion should never intertwine, the soldiers in wars probably heavily rely on religion to give them security and love when all they witness is hatred and horror. The purpose of religion is to create a belief system that explains one’s world. Therefore, the connection between violence and religion in this case is admirable; the people are bravely fighting for their countries always resort to religion in order to aid them.

Which rituals and ceremonies are socially acceptable and considered civilize in today’s world? When should religion use religion to promote its concepts? Are soldiers’ religious backgrounds admirable or hypocritical?

Conflict Resolution in England and France

A government can be assessed based on how it responds to opposition. If a government immediately clamps down on revolts, then this government is either extremely effective or tyrannical. On the flip side, if the government surrenders and allows the protests, it is either progressive and open to improvement or a weak, vulnerable system. The key in creating a strong government is trying to get a helpful balance in either of these categories. A tyrannical or weak government leads to dire consequences. Two main examples of rebellions in history were the Boston Tea Party, a revolt in opposition Britain’s Tea Act, and the Great Fear, a rebellion in which peasants overcame their masters in France. The governments, in both of these cases, were monarchies but they handled the situations in completely different ways.

Britain imposed the Tea Act on its colonies in order to prevent the East India Company from sinking into bankruptcy. It essentially allowed the East India company to monopolize all tea trade. Once the colonists of Boston performed the Boston Tea Party, Britain instantly retaliated with the Coercive Acts, or the Intolerable Acts, which limited the rights of Boston. England’s monarchy controlled the rebellion, but the action eventually backfired because it galvanized the colonists even more, ultimately leading to their independence.

In France, which also had monarchy, had a rebellion called the Great Fear. The Great Fear occurred in response to King Louis XVI’s limitations on the National Assembly. Peasants in the countryside began to ransack manors, stand up to their masters, and burn the contracts that outlined their duties. However, on August 4, 1789, the duke of Aiguillon, one of France’s greatest noble landowners, destroyed the nobles’ privileges, eliminated feudal duties, and enforced equality in taxation. However, the duke of Aiguillon, though he consented to the people’s wishes, was not weak and submissive. In fact, his courageous actions saved the monarchy from even stronger rebellion. If he had sent troops to subdue the people, the repercussions would have been even more violent and crazed, as was the case after the Boston Tea Party.

Overall, though England and France were essentially run the same way, as monarchies, they dealt with two crucial oppositions in completely different ways. These two situations show the fundamental differences between England and France. England’s reaction led to further violence. England made no attempts to compromise with the colonies, such as adopting actual representation or giving people more rights. While they withdrew certain taxes, such as the Stamp Act, they did not make attempts to alter their political philosophy at all. Therefore, the repeals of various acts were only superficial attempts to create peace. On the contrary, France’s reaction delayed violent acts, because the duke of Aiguillon gave the commoners more rights and took away noble privileges, even though he himself was a noble. While France had a much more bloody revolution, the monarchy of France attempted to correct its flaws and become a better government. For example, King Louis XVII actually supported the National Assembly at first for he urged reforms and forced all three estates to meet as one body so that discussion could be facilitated easier. While he cracked down on the assembly later (of course, France’s monarchy made some significant errors which resulted in revolution; they were by no means a perfect nation), the intentions of France were more well-meaning. In all, though England and France were politically similar, but the way they handled opposition ultimately affected their revolutions and relationships with the people.