Romania and Yugoslavia: The Only Countries that Encountered Violence

Out of all the Eastern European countries Romania and Yugoslavia were the only countries that encountered any violence during the collapse of Communism, because their governments were the only ones that openly resisted the people. For example, with Yugoslavia, the leader, Josip Tito, ruled with harsh communism. Then, a lot of the Serbians instigated racially motivated violence, killing many people. Eventually, NATO forces had to intervene. Finally in July 2001, a pro- Western government formed. In Romania the leader Nicolae Ceausescu ordered troops to completely crush any opposition. In response, the people just overthrew the government and killed the tyrant and his wife. While the people set up a new government, the country proved to be extremely unstable. In both countries, the governments’ violence towards the opposition eventually caused a lot of violence, as opposed to the leaders in other countries who actually supported free elections and reform.

This begs the question: should governments retaliate when faced with opposition? Should a government stick by its ideals (in this case, communism) or just listen to the people? In reference to present- day situations in Egypt, the revolution was mainly non-violent, because Mubarak decided to step down from power. However, should he have tried to justify his policies in order to protect his country or is avoiding violence a better idea? I personally believe that a leader should ultimately listen to the people and make any necessary concessions. However, I do not believe that a leader’s policies should always be affected by the people’s opinions. Sometimes very popular policies tend to harm a country. For example, small- business owners supported Gorbachev’s economic structuring, but when it backfired the people were not too happy. Public opinion of leaders always wavers; therefore, this should not control the people’s policies. In all, violence occurred in Romania and Yugoslavia because the governments openly resisted the people.

Revolutions in Iran and Egypt

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~theed/Cold_War/d_Brezhnev_Era/g%20Carter_77-80/media/d_Iranian_Revolution/hostages.jpg
http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/FacebookEgypt.jpg

The revolutions in Iran and Egypt were led by two main driving forces: a leader and social media. While both revolutions incorporated organization and media to demonstrate their main ideas, Iran mostly relied on one leader while Egypt relied on media to overthrow its government. Which form of communication can more efficiently start a revolution? Will the outcome of the Egyptian revolution be different than that of Iran’s because social media rather than an prominent leader was used to rebel against the government?

Social media is more efficient in creating a revolution, because it is a lot easier to drive people towards a cause when it is done digitally. Technology has thoroughly permeated our culture, and the fact that Egyptian protestors used social media, particularly Facebook, exhibits a drastic change in the way that people overthrow governments. The people of Egypt were (and still are) upset with their government, and social media was a really efficient way to spread ideas right underneath the government’s nose. The “We are all Khaled Said” Facebook page created by Wael Ghonim indicates unity amongst the protestors and the genuine outrage over the lack of freedom in their country. In an interview with CNN Ghonim states it simply, “This is the Internet revolution.” Social media, since a lot of the protests are simply online, also encourages non-violent beliefs. Since protestors can vent online, there is less pressure to kill government officials. This is why the death toll for the Iranian revolution is significantly greater than Egypt’s. Social media can really gather people around a common cause; therefore, a prominent leader is actually relatively unnecessary. As in the case with Iran, the people idolized Khomeini. However, different political groups sprung up, all trying to seize power. Khomeini did not do anything to prevent the violence and chaos that followed. In fact, he actually endorsed controversial events such as the hostage crisis involving the U.S. Embassy. In all, a real leader is not needed in a revolution, because chaos will always naturally follow, as observed in Iran. Instead, unity and communication amongst the people is what really drives the force. Social media was essential to the huge success of the Egyptian Revolution, and it was achieved without a leader.

So what does this mean for the outcome of the Egyptian revolution? The fact that Egypt’s revolution was supported by social media rather than one leader suggests two very different possible outcomes for the country. In one case, the people could easily unite themselves, form a democratic government, and peacefully delegate power. However, the more realistic outcome is that the lack of a true leader will cause different political groups to try and seize power, only creating more chaos. In Iran’s case, having a leader also caused violence and turmoil within the government. Therefore, chaos is inevitable in any revolution whether a leader or social media is used. This contradiction makes it extremely difficult to stage rebellions. However, social media is more preferable because it unites people against one common cause easier and quicker, suggests non-violence, and prevents any domineering dictatorships. It is more likely that social media will lead to non-violent protests and less corruption in the government. Therefore, Egypt’s revolution will most likely be very successful. Some violence will occur as it always does, but the people will install a more democratic system in the end. Overall, social media is the new method of rebellion so it is best to embrace it in its entirety.

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