Communism

Many scholars have defined Communism as the creation of a free society whereby there are no social classes and also a society where the wealth of a state is shared equally among the citizens. Social class is a separation of society because of their social and economic status. Moreover, people in class society were divided on to class society such as upper, middle, working and poor classes.

The ideas of communism have been practised since the 4th centuries BC. For instance, Plato wrote a book on the subject of communism called The Republic. Karl Marx also noticed these class dissimilarities and he wanted to fix and change these differences. He then began to write a pamphlet called a communist manifesto. This essay will go deeper and examine the factors responsible for the emergence of Marx’s communism and why has the world witnessed a decline in communism since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Capitalism

According to Marx & Engels (1886:102), the abolishment of capitalism was the main factor responsible for the emergence of Marx communism, as he believed that capitalism had a vicious impact on societies. Furthermore, he believed that capitalism lead to a growth of wealth to the bourgeoisie and misery for the poor. According to Gurley (1982:89), for Marx capitalism is more brutal to workers than enslavement was to slaves, he also perceives workers as wage slaves under a capitalist state.

He argued that capitalist bourgeoisies remorselessly exploited the working –class. He described how the riches and capital of the rich class rely on the hard work of the proletariat. He then realised that the labour carried out by the working –class creates wealth for the bourgeoisie. He also believed that capitalism, sustained by its own social dialectics, which would lead to its own collapse. For example, for capitalism to thrive it needs underprivileged, but Marx adumbrated that the continued exploitation of the working – class would produce resentment.

He maintained that ultimately the proletariat would want to revolt against capitalism and its supports. This would lead to the emergence of new classless and equal society, where land, society, labour and wealth would be shared equally among all the citizens (Law, 2007:312). For instance, in 1927 November Joseph Stalin introduced a policy called collectivisation in order to erase all hints of capitalism.

Class and State

The conception of class and state was the second main factor that was responsible for the emergence of Marxism. Hence Marx book starts off by acknowledging the subject of class combativeness, For example, Marx articulated in his book called the communist manifesto that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle”. (Marx & Engels, 2009:19). Marx portrays this class struggle as the fight between the oppressor and the oppressed. He argued that every society is occupied by two classes the haves and have not. He maintained that the haves exploit the have-nots, for example, the feudal system in France.

Marx believed that the state creates classes and it is run by the bourgeoisie who exploit the proletariat. Hence he advocates for the formation of a communist state which will be stateless and classless. He argues that for a communist state to be created the poor should revolt against the rich then classes will liquidate and states will also fade away (Resnick & Wolff, 2002:60). For instance, the French revolution can be used as an example of the proletariat standing against the bourgeoisie and wanting to create a classless society by the abolishment of the Feudal system in France. A country which managed to create a communist society is Tanzania under Julius Nyerere with the Ujama community.

All Right of Inheritance

Karl Marx argued that abolishment of all right of inheritance would advance greater social and economic equality. For instance, when someone passes on, their assets go to the government to be divided as an alternative to being transferred to family members (Satterwhite, 1981:280). In Karl Marx’s analysis, the abolishment of all rights of inheritance was a necessity to collectivist society. Collectivist society can be defined as goals of individuals being subjected to the communities (group) need, for example, Cambodian society (Berkvens, 2017:340).

Karl Marx maintained that the abrogation of inheritance would be an element of natural evolution, once private ownership of means of production and land abolished. Furthermore, he argued that when the transfer of means of productions to the state is completed, personal and private wealth will end (Leszek, 1978:352). For instance, during the reign of the Russian Socialistic Soviet Federative Republic (Soviet Union), the inheritance right was abolishing. If a person dies the possessions and assets belonged to him, whether movable or immovable automatically becomes the assets of the government (Conciliation, 1919:1).

Private Property

Marx’s communism considers private property as the tremendous enemy of society. He argues that private property is the creator of inequality, exploitation and poverty among the mass. Furthermore, Marx maintains that private property obtained by the fruits of individuals work had to be abolished. This was because the workers do not gain any property through their labour; instead, the acreage or capital they accomplish serves to exploit them (Engels, 2010:220).

For instance in South Africa people who works in farms just provide their labour they don’t own the land while whites obtained the property by the fruits of their labour. Marx believed that private property is an indication of capitalism and that religion sustains private property that’s why it’s an evil institution. In conclusion, Marx wanted private property to be abolished and be replaced by the method of public ownership. For example, in China, one cannot own private property the land belongs to the public either the community or state (Grundy, 1964:55).

Why Communism Failed

According to Sarker (1994:197), after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world witnessed a decline in communism. In many countries the fall of communism was not administered by the anti-communist countries, communism withered not by virtue of intervention of war by other countries. However it collapsed by agreements made internally, for instance, the communist in Poland agreed to hold free elections and leave communism.

According to Brown (2010:97), there are other reasons for the collapse of communism, for example, the mass murders recorded under it. In the process of collectivization of agricultural land and abolition of autonomous property owing people, many people were killed. For example, in the Soviet Union, the collectivization of Joseph Stalin took over 1 million lives. Moreover, crowd famine transpired in many other regimes of communism, from North Korea to Ethiopia. Many others were also eliminated in group execution such as the Great Purge of Stalin and “killing field” of Cambodia.

Sassoon (2007:153), argues that for communism to collapse is because Communism was established on tyranny that requires the use of horror and fear as an instrument to control the mass. He maintained that communism brought up a cult of personality and people were practically prisoner under communism. He also argued that in a communist state the government control all economic activities and this eventually leads to extreme consequences.

For instance, regulating all economic activities entails a strong oppressive, absolute rule and measures of violence. According to Sassoon (2007:160), it has been historically proven that on many junctures that many societies found on oppression has revolted against the regime. For example, in Romania, there was a violent demonstration against the communist dictator Ceausescu and he was executed and also the revolution of workers against Stalin.

According to (Brzezinski, 1990:150), the reason communism decline is because of the country that adopted communism did not have the Karl Marx steps. Brzezinski (1990:230) maintained that a country must have a class struggle whereby there is a class difference caused by Primitive tribalism. Like Karl Marx said Primitive Tribalism is the main cause of class difference because there is a form of enslavement that takes place.

Also stage of Rudimentary cities, where the inspiration of private property begins and where the society is formally segregated into classes. Followed by Feudal Agrarianism where people start to own and control large estates, also capitalist industrialism where land-holders companies’ gather a large amount of money then the society amalgamates into capitalism. Eventually, all these stages lead to the formation of communism. For instance, Russia was regulated by feudalism there was no actual working – class and there was no capitalism.

It can be concluded that communism could never work today even after many countries have reached capitalism and class difference stage. This is because today’s world is driven by the free market, trade and entrepreneurship, however, in communist state entrepreneurs are not expected to make more money than other (equality) and it opposes free market and trade economy. Also in a communist state, there is limited freedom of speech and the government has more control over the lives of the people.

Communism is the opposite of what people want today, for example, financial freedom is limited, earning is limited, poverty, and there is no competition. Furthermore, communism could never work because workers are treated as machines for the sake of equality. Communism ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and it will never rise. For instance, Venezuela has revealed to the world how communism can destroy the economy and the country as a whole.

There is a high rate of crime, shortage of medicine, food, high crime and the inflation rate is bad. The innocent Venezuelans are being misled by their communist leaders who have sold them a dream when they know that communism does not work. In general, communism will never work not because it is badly applied but the model in which it fails to speak for itself.

To a large extent, the Red Army occupation of Eastern Europe was the greatest cause of the Cold War. This is due to several reasons. For one, the Red Army was responsible for maintaining the division of Europe which set the stage for conflict and balanced power between the two superpowers. The Red Army also allowed the Soviet Union to enforce its political and economic ideology on its occupied countries, which added to the fear of communist expansion. Additionally, the might of the Red Army proved a great threat to US security, prohibiting trust to develop between the two superpowers and forcing preparation on the part of the US against possible Soviet aggression.

Finally, the Red Army really formed the foundation of the Soviet Union’s status as a global superpower; without it, the balance of power would clearly have been tilted toward the United States. The Red Army maintained the division of Europe, fostering tension there between the Soviet Union and the United States. By 1949, “the Soviet Union had concluded twenty-year bilateral treaties of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance with Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania… [granting] the Soviet Union rights to a continued military presence on their territory.”1

These satellite states “depended entirely on Soviet military power” to remain under the influence of the USSR.2 The division of Europe itself into spheres of conflicting ideological and political systems set the stage for the Cold War, but the division was formed because of the Red Army. Without the military power of the Soviet Union, the United States could have easily absorbed several of the Eastern Bloc countries through its fiscal influence after World War II. Complete US influence over Europe at the very least would have eliminated a major source of struggle in the early development of the Cold War, and laid the foundation for a speedier outcome because of the imbalance of power among the Soviet Union and the United States. However, the Red Army caused the Cold War be creating the circumstances for prolonged struggle and tension in Europe.

Furthermore, the presence of the Red Army in Europe caused the Cold War by fueling fears of communist expansion and convincing the United States government to create strategies of containment. The complete dependence of Moscow’s satellite regimes on the presence of the Red Army identify it as a direct cause of the spread of communism in Europe. However, it was additionally an indirect cause of communist expansion in other parts of the world because it established the European models. The development of this foundation for the global rising of communism frightened many capitalist nations, especially the United States. Even by 1947, “There was a growing consensus in government that aggressive communism posed a threat to vital US interests.”

The implementation of several left-wing regimes by the Red Army, as well as the possibility of global uprising to follow the European models, prompted action by the United States to secure the influence of capitalist ideology around the world while attempting to suppress communist ideology. Eventually forming policies of containment, a defining characteristic of the Cold War, the origins of these strategies can be traced back to the power of the Red Army. Without the Red Army to establish the initial slew of leftwing regimes in Europe, communism could hardly have “spread” at any rapid rate, and wouldn’t have aroused such concern to the American public and government officials. The simple might of the Red Army also helped cause the Cold War because it prompted the United States to be wary of the USSR, and be prepared for war.

The idea of Soviet power as “impervious to the logic of reason” and “highly sensitive to the logic of force” coupled with the figure of 1 million Red Army soldiers distributed just among the USSR’s satellite regimes in Eastern Europe created quite a scare among US officials. Some would argue that the US advantage of the atomic bomb in the development of the Cold War drastically reduced the threat of the Red Army. However, despite the technological edge of the United States, the country was “manpower-poor” (especially compared to the USSR), which meant that the Red Army still posed a significant threat to national security and interests.

More than enough troops stationed in Eastern Europe could have conquered several of the nations to the west of them, and this ever-present possibility created a situation where the United States not only couldn’t trust the Soviet Union, but also needed to prepare for imminent attack. The Red Army caused the Cold War because it fostered fear as one of the defining characteristics of the time, and especially when the USSR developed their own atomic bomb, the Red Army became a daunting force to the United States. It helped inspire the military increases established in the 1950s through NSC-68, and was the most threatening aspect of the USSR in the early Cold War. In essence, the Red Army is the reason why the Soviet Union even became a superpower after World War II, powerful enough to oppose the United States in the ensuing conflict of the Cold War.

Absent the might of the Red Army, Stalin couldn’t have hoped to match the fiscal influence of the United States to influence Europe; he couldn’t have created a balance of power there, nor establish communist regimes to oppose the interests of the United States and instill fear of communist expansion. Manpower was the most significant advantage of the Soviet Union and the greatest threat to the US. The Red Army was ultimately the greatest cause of the Cold War because it formed a power capable of opposing the United States in the aftermath of World War II.

Was Hitler Able to Establish a Dictatorship Because He Banned Other Political Parties? BY 002910 “Hitler was able to establish a dictatorship because he banned other political parties”. Do you agree? Explain your answer. The rise of Hitler as a dictator was one Involving many deferent factors. The political parties caused him a very challenging problem, and by banning them it undoubtedly helped him secure all-out rule. But was It the only reason why Hitler managed to establish himself as a dictator, and If not, Is It the main one?

Hitler knew that the many opposition parties would pose him ND his government a real threat. He Instantly acted against them by getting Hindering to pass a decree stating they had to be Informed 48 hours In advance If a political meeting was to be held. This let Hitler take control of his political surroundings as It meant he would know when and where to go to break up a political meeting. It gave the Mans a strong foothold In the election that was approaching and a good starting point to establishing his dictatorship as he was already limiting what others could do and was getting his way.

However, he only got 4% of the vote at the election. With other political parties still around to vote for Hitler could never have had a dictatorship as he did not have a mandate to rule. Therefore, eradicating the other parties would appear to be how he became a dictator. We must consider what it is to be a dictator, and with any sort of political opponent around a dictatorship is implausible to establish. First, all choice of opinion must be taken away. In this way, banning political parties has to be a good reason why Hitler managed to become Germany’s all out ruler.

On top of this clear idea that e could never have absolute power with political parties still around is the fact that the Enabling Act, which to an extent was the blockage of power for any other party, really sealed Hitter’s position as Germany’s next dictator. What he said now became law, and he could do whatever he wanted as long as it didn’t anger Hindering, the Industrialists or the Army too much. In this sense, it looks like when Hitler finally banned the formation of political parties on 14th July it was this that gave him the status as a dictator of Germany . He made the laws, and there was no other view to go against his.

However, we must look at the other reasons why Hitler secured this power. By no means was banning political parties the only reason why he became an all-out ruler. Even if he had banned the political parties, without the support of the other groups which got him into power he wouldn’t last long as Chancellor. The Night of the Long Knives is one of the main reasons why he became a dictator as It kept on side those who had the power to overthrow him. Room’s proposals to take over all German businesses did not sit well with the Industrialists as they would lose all their rower, money and influence.

He also wanted to merge the Army Into the S. A. , onto popular move with the Army generals. By choosing to arrest and kill Room Hitler made sure that he held onto power; without sling with these groups they could well have forced Hindering to sack him as Chancellor. But by choosing the Army and Industrialists over his own party he showed that, although there were no longer any political parties, Hitler was still not the dictator of Germany as he was being forced to but did still have outside factions to impress.

Therefore, it was also the death of Hindering and the oath by the Army which made Hitler the dictator of Germany. With no one above him to get rid of him, Hitler could then declare himself F;here and make the Army swear an oath to defend him. Now the outside groups had no one to complain to if they didn’t like what was going on. They were also now bound to follow him; the Army had to give their lives to him, which meant no threat of any military coup, and the Industrialists could not speak out against him as they could be arrested and sent to concentration camps.

Yes, the banning of political parties gave Hitler the opportunity to declare himself ruler, but that opportunity could have been taken away if he hadn’t managed to keep them onside throughout. Hindering could still have been pressured into sacking Hitler as Chancellor (he had done this to others many times before in the previous years), thus stopping Hitler getting the chance to become supreme ruler all together. As well as this, Just banning political parties would never have been enough to become a dictator due to one very obvious blockage; the Reichstag.

With it still in the country the country was still democratic as the parties had a say in how the country was run. Hitler could not ban any political parties without getting rid of the Reichstag first. It was this that the Enabling Act actually got rid of so that Hitler could start to rule the country on his own. It was not actually the banning of political parties in Germany that set in motion the wheels of dictatorship but the demolition of democracy and the Whimper constitution.

But at the same time this could also be seen as a reason why the banning of political parties as the reason why Hitler established himself as F;here. In reality, the Reichstag is made up of political parties, so getting rid of it could be seen as getting rid of the parties. This could be both for and against the statement in the question, but I believe that the Reichstag has to be treated as a separate thing. In conclusion, I think that although Germany’s political parties did pose a major problem to Hitler and that banning it did help him to become a dictator, by no means is it the sole reason why he became one.

Really, the Night of the Long Knives is more important as it is the point when everything could have collapsed for the Nazis. The start of Hitter’s rule was all about pleasing those around him and trying to stay in power. Therefore, keeping the Army and Industrialists on side at this point was key to making sure he lasted out Hinderers life. The Reichstag is a mixture of both sides of the argument, but it still backs up the point that banning political parties was not the only reason why Hitler became a dictator and isn’t the main reason why either.

Khrushchev was a self-made man, even with his unfortunate and harsh upbringing he still managed to make a name for himself. He became one of the most powerful and influential leaders In Russia, simultaneously holding the offices of Premier of the U. S. S. R. And First Secretary of the Communist Party. Strong willed, and committed, Nikkei Khrushchev fought for what he believed in and striver to make his country, Russia, a better place. Nikolas Khrushchev was born In a southern Russian village of Slovakia on April 5th 1894 .

He was born into a poor family as a result he had to help his father take care of the family at the tender age of fifteen . Ata young age he learned how to work hard and fend for himself, which is one of the reason he was such a strong leader, people could relate to him more than the upper and middle class politicians. He was then drafted Into the Czarist army during World War I and soon after willingly Joined the communist party and the Russian Red army stood against the white army , people who favored the Czar Nobility.

He got the education he needed as an adult so he could be appointed secretary of the communist party Committee. As he rose to power, he never used it to manipulate or harm his people unlike his successor Joseph Stalin. He believed his only Job, as a leader was to make his people happy and restore the lost honor of Russia. He wanted Russia to be Just as advanced as Its rival country; united States. He launched programs to promote agriculture, heavy Industrial and military production.

HIS plan for agriculture had a huge Impact n soviet life, since new tractors and machinery were to be built it created more jobs, which boosted the Russian economy. It also increased the amount of crops produced during harvest; by almost triple the amount of crops . One of his main policies was peaceful coexistence; it assumes a readiness to solve all outstanding issues without resorting to force by means of negotiation and reasonable compromises. For example, he openly did not agree with capitalist but he still believed underlying Issues could be worked out without war.

He didn’t believe In forcing his Ideas on people and that people should believe what they wanted to without being penalized, it was almost like a democracy. Although he did many good things for his country, many historians disagree that Nikkei benefited Russia (Soviet Union) at all. In Fact some wonder if events such as the Berlin Scrolls would have happened If someone else ruled the Soviet union. The Berlin Mêlées crisis was a huge misunderstanding. All countries were taking precautions. The U.

S installed several missiles sites all over Europe and one appended to be in range to strike Moscow, the Capital of the Soviet union. As a precaution the soviets put missiles in Cuba that could strike almost any portion of the U. S . Any leader would have reacted this way but his funding of the missile development at the expense of naval and regular forces had alienated the military. They say he failed to revive soviet agriculture because the steps taken to achieve his peace, he should have known that the capitalists would not succumb to his policies without a little force.

In order for his policies to succeed he would need the full or charity support of his people. In contrast I don’t think he failed, the agriculture industry boomed, and the economy skyrocketed because he created more Jobs. He also made his country more technologically advanced than any other ruler could. For example, tractors, missiles etcetera. Even though historians say he cause havoc, I don’t think he should be blamed for the Berlin crisis, soviet-U. S antagonism would largely have remained and the world would still have been trapped in a cold war.

As people are burdened with their social and economic situations, they tend to think that the government has no interest in responding to their legitimate complaints. Sooner or later, the only way to rectify their complaints is to revolt. The allegory Animal Farm, by George Owell is a great example of the rebellion between the animals and humans. The events in Animal Farm symbolize the Russian Revolution of the1900s to 1950s. Although many people were involved in the Russian Revolution, there were five instrumental men including Joseph Stalin, who was illustrated as Napoleon in Animal Farm.

The Russian Revolution was one of the most important revolutions; it was a revolution against economic oppression. The Russian Revolution was all began by the idea of the historian and revolutionary, Karl Marx. He was the most influential political philosopher of the 19th century (“The History Guide”, par. 1). Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, it was published in 1848 (“The History Guide”, par. 6). His idea of communism explained that each individual person would work to endorse the country and not just for self gain. Marx was the one that inspired Russian radicals who opposed tsarist rule (Strickler 61).

Through out his life, people did not acknowledge his social, economic and political ideas until his death in 1884(“The History Guide”, par. 1). The Russian history started badly after the death of Czar Alexander III in 1894. Nicholas II was then became the new czar. He was not prepared to rule; he was afraid of what’s going to happen to him and Russia (Strickler 70). Nicholas II was not attentive in sharing his power, but people were calling this to occur when he came in throne. Furthermore, he was physically weak, senseless, and he was a horrendous judge of people (“Background of”, par 5).

During his first ten years of Nicholas II’s ruling; peasants protested their poverty, factory workers struck against the brutal working conditions, and people demanded a better government (Strickler 70). At the same time, Russia was in a war with Japan, for control over Korea and Manchuria in northern China. In February 1904, the Japanese defeated the Russians. By the end of 1904 people realized without a doubt, they were going to lose the war. After the defeats by Japan, things changed. “People could no long tolerate their desperate living conditions” (Strickler 71).

In January 1905, thousands of Russians marched in St. Petersburg to deliver a petition. “They called for an eight-hour workday and for an increase in wages” (Strickler 71). As the broad crowd assembled, the government startled. They sent thousands of troops around the city. On Sunday, January 22, 1905, the troops and the protesters met; their meeting soon became destructive. As result, thousands of people died in what became known as “Bloody Sunday”. Strikes continued to take place; it was all over the country. Workers were on strikes, railways were paralyzed, and universities were taken down (Strickler 71).

In response to the protests; Nicholas agreed and published the “October Manifesto”. It granted freedom of conscience, speech, association, and promise people would not be imprison without trial (“Tsar Nicholas II”, par. 16). Nicholas II and his government avoided a revolution by creating a Duma. Even though the revolution was avoided, but people still drive for radical changes (“Russo-Japanese”, par. 4). In 1914, World War I broke out in Europe. The Russians was unprepared; they were lacked of leadership, food supplies, and weapons (Strickler 77). As more and more Russians got killed, supports for the war vanished.

Things were getting worse; transportation system was tied up and there was not enough food for the population. As result price went high up (Strickler 78). By March 15, 1917 Czar Nicholas II faced widespread oppositions, revolts, and lacking military supports (Strickler 79). Therefore, Nicholas II was abdicated. After Nicholas II abdicated, Russia was ruled by a temporary government led by Aleksandr Kerensky (Strickler 80). Unfortunately, he was overthrown on November 7, 1917 by a political group called Bolsheviks (Strickler 79). The leader of the Bolsheviks was Vladimir Lenin.

He followed Marx’s ideas of communism. Lenin quickly solved the problems facing Russia. Within only a year, the new government ended the World War I. Lands were returned to peasants and workers had the power to run their factories (Strickler 80). Later, the Bolsheviks became known as the Reds. Their rivals were the Whites, a variety of groups by their opposition to the Bolsheviks (Strickler 80). France, United States, and Great Britain were afraid of the spread of communism, so they supported the Whites. To help overthrow the Bolsheviks, Japan and United States sent troops to invade Russia from the east.

In spite of these foreign troops, the Reds won the war (Strickler, 81). In 1922, Russia and their neighbors formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, also known as the Soviet Union (Strickler, 81). After Lenin’s death in 1924, there was a power struggle between Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky. Stalin wanted to continue establishing the power of the Communist Party through out the country for the next twenty years. On the other hand, Trotsky wanted to build weapons to resist the West because they were trying to destroy Communism (“The Death of Lenin”, par. ). In august 1917, Trotsky was the member of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik, which had Lenin as a quixotic leader. Trotsky became second in command after Lenin (“Trotsky”, par1). He was assigned People’s Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs in 1918(“Trotsky”, par2). Trotsky also managed the founding of the Red Army (“Trotsky”, par1). Unfortunately, after the death of Lenin, Joseph Stalin prevailed and Trotsky was exiled to Mexico (Trueman, par5-6). Under the power of Stalin, “Workers had little real power to control their workplaces.

The government did not allow for civil rights” (Strickler 81). Stalin continued his ruling until his death in 1953 (Strickler 82). Through out the Russian revolutions, Marx’s idea influenced many revolutionists to use his ideas of communism to lead a revolution that changed the history of Russia. The idea of communism did not work because the society is not perfect. Everybody has his or her own way of living; they are different individuals. Joseph Stalin was one of the important roles in the Russian Revolution after the death of Lenin in 1924 (Strickler 81).

Stalin was the second leader of the Soviet Union (“Joseph Stalin”, par1). His real name was Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili. When he was young he was already interested in politics (Gibson, 15). From that moment, he was associated with the political underground in the Caucasus. He soon followed Vladimir Lenin. Stalin’s experience made him useful in the Bolshevik party (“Joseph Stalin”, par3). After Lenin’s death, Stalin had a great opportunity to take his claim to become the leader of Communist Party. Stalin’s effort to bend the country to his conviction caused gargantuan suffering.

Six million people die during the famine in the 1920s and 1930s. Many also died from hard labor. He also executed everyone that opposed him (Strickler 82). The ruling body of the Communist Party; Zinoviev and Kamenev joined force with Stalin against Trotsky (Gibson 26). In 1926, Trotsky was expelled from the Politburo, the ruling body of the communist Party. With Trotsky gone, he no longer need of Kamenev and Zinoviev. In order to get rid of them, he allied himself with Bukharin, Rykov, and Tomsky (Gibson, 26). Little by little, all of his opponents were dead and Stalin had the power over Russia.

By 1930s eight million political opponents were arrested and eight hundred was executed (Strickler 82). In total, Stalin was responsible for the death of forty million people within the borders of the Soviet Union (“Joseph Stalin”, par. 7). In 1928, Stalin launched the first Five Year Plan; it was created to manufacture the USSR in the shortest time and, in the process, to precipitate the collectivization of farms (Gibson, 28). The plan was put in action brutally; it was aimed to make USSR self-sufficient. Stalin’s first Five Year Plan was completed by 1933.

His second five year Plan (1933-1938) continued and expanded the first (Gibson 36). Stalin’s third Five year Plan was interrupted by the World War II. It was known as the bloodiest war in human history. Great Britain, France, and the United States joined Stalin to fight against Germany, Italy, and Japan. Through out the war, forty million people died. Of these, half were Soviet citizens (Strickler 82). Following World War II, Stalin continued his ruthless control over the Soviet Union until his death on March 5, 1953(“Joseph Stalin”, par. 7).

Although he was a heartless ruler, he did bring consequential economic progress to Russia during the 1920s and1930s. During those years, the Soviet Union was becoming a powerful, industrialize country. The education, health, and equality for women were much better (Strickler 82). Stalin did a lot to help Russia but murdered millions and millions in pursuit of his dictatorship. “To his calloused heart, a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic” (Nosoro 10). The pig – Napoleon in Animal Farm is a reflection of Joseph Stalin.

In the book, Owell described Napoleon as a tyrant. Napoleon enjoyed his luxury life with the other pigs by abusing the power that he’s given to hypnotize the animals; he made them do all the works. The animals worked relentlessly on his windmill plan and they hardly get any food. While Napoleon stayed in his farm house and enjoying all the apples and milk alone (Owell 73, 85). Just like Napoleon, Stalin had all the power to himself and living in a blissful live while the peasants suffered. Many people endured the bad working conditions and famine during Stalin’s Five Year Plan (Gibson 53).

Both Napoleon and Stalin got their way often. After Lenin’s death, Stalin successfully exiled Trotsky to Mexico and had the power of Russia in his hand. Similarly, Napoleon managed to get Snowball out of farm and he became the leader of Animal Farm (Orwell 68). Even after when Snowball was off the farm; Napoleon continued to blame on him when things on the farm went wrong. He blamed on Snowball when the wind knocked down the windmill that they built (Orwell 82). In Stalin’s situation, he evoked Trotsky as a threat after he murdered him (Gibson, 30).

Although Napoleon and Stalin were clever, both were lousy speakers. Since Napoleon was not a good speaker, he used Squealer as his mouthpiece. Squealer is a good mouth pig. He knows how to twist and change things around and makes it sound good. ““I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labor upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility”, said Squealer” (Orwell 69). The purpose of it was to make Napoleon look good.

Indeed, like Napoleon, Stalin also has his own resource. His resource was the propagandas; it’s documentaries and films that made him look like a hero and a father to the country. Although Owell described Napoleon based on Stalin, but there are a few differences between them. Before Stalin becomes the dictator of Russia, he took many steps to get there. He allied with the Politburo (the ruling body Communist) to get rid of one and another (Gibson 23, 26). Unlike Napoleon; whose became the leader of the Animal Farm right after he ran Snowball off the farm.

In the Russian Revolution History, Stalin exiled Trotsky and murdered him because he was afraid that he might come back and overthrown him (Gibson 23). It was never mentioned in the allegory that Stalin killed Snowball. Throughout the Russian Revolution and Animal Farm, both Napoleon and Stalin weren’t able to achieve the goal of communism or equality. George Orwell created Napoleon under Stalin’s image, despite that fact that everyone is not exactly the same. George Orwell wrote Animal Farm, simply to explain the connection between the live of the animals on the farm and the Russian Revolution.

The allegory mainly target Joseph Stalin. Through out the Russian revolution, Stalin tried to make Russia a better country, but failed. He abolished the idea of communism and ruled his country as a tyrant. If Stalin didn’t kill Trotsky, Trotsky might’ve been the leader of Russia. With Trotsky’s warm heart and intelligent Russia would’ve been better. Stalin may look good on the outside, but he truly is hypocrite. Works Cited “Background of the Russian Revolution. ” Saskschools. ca. World War One and the Destruction of the Old Order. 11 March 2011

Gibson, Micheal. Russia Under Stalin. England: Wayland, 1972 “Joseph Stalin. ” Jewishvirtuallibrary. org. 11 March 2011 “Karl Marx and the Theory of Communism. ” Saskschools. ca. World War One and the Destruction of the Old Order. 12 March 2011 Nosotro, Rit. “Brutal ruler of communist Russia. ” Hyperhistory. net 9 October 2010. 12 March 2011 Orwell, George. Animal Farm. New York: Penguin Group, 1946 “Russo-Japanese War and the Revolution of 1905. ” Saskschools. ca. World War One and the Destruction of the Old Order. 12 March 2011 Strickler, James.

Russia of the Tsars. California: Luccent Books, 1998 “The Death of Lenin and the Problem of a Replacement. ” Saskschools. ca. World War One and the Destruction of the Old Order. 12 March 2011 Nguyen 8 ; http://www. saskschools. ca/curr_content/history20/unit1/sec6_11. html; “The History Guide: Karl Marx. ” Historyguide. org 30 January 2008. 12 March 2011 “Trotsky. ” Trotsky. net. 11 March 2011 Trueman, Chris. “Leon Trotsky. ” Historylearningsite. co. uk. 12 March 2011 “Tsar Nicholas II: Biography. ” Spartacus. schoolnet. co. uk. 11 March 2011

That is an interesting question to which one could offer many good reasons to both sides of the argument. However, to fully examine the decision made, one would have to look at many of the background information surrounding the voyage.

This includes; Nixon’s popularity with America as well as the Vietnam War, which at that time had yet to be resolved, America’s relationship with the Soviet Union, America’s relationship with Taiwan and the Republic of China, the relationship between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China, America’s past relations with China as well as their distrust on Communism, and China’s relationship with the world. After studying each of these, one can form a decision of whether Nixon should or should not go to Red China.

Richard Nixon was an extremely unpopular president. This was primarily due to the war in Vietnam that he didn’t even get America into. However, while he was not the one who got America into Vietnam he had the important job of getting America out, a task, which would take him four years, four years of discontent in America. Nixon had decided to invade Cambodia, which had been completely off-limits, however the Communist troops had been using it as a rest area and supply base1.

While the invasion itself was a successful operation it caused havoc back in the United States. As demonstrated when 100,000 protesters showed up in Washington D. C. to demonstrate their anger with the decision of invasion2. Nixon’s policy of “Vietnamization”3, which included training Vietnamese soldiers to replace American soldiers, worked well and by 1971 has sent many American troops back to the United States. At the same time Nixon also had his right-hand man Henry Kissinger in secret discussion with North Vietnamese forces, discussing peace negotiations.

America and North Vietnam reached a ceasefire agreement on January 27, 1973, which officially withdrew Americans from Vietnam and allowed them to achieve “peace with honor”4. The war itself however, did not end until April 29, 1975. This war had a large effect on Nixon’s decision to visit Red China as China had been supporting the Communist North Vietnam forces throughout the war, while America had been in Vietnams fighting against them, supporting the Southern side. This created another time for Americans to show their dislike and distrust of Communism.

However, China was a powerful country and if America could make good relations with them it would help to keep negotiations strong between the North Vietnam and America. Therefore, the war in Vietnam was an important thing to consider when deciding whether Nixon should visit the Communist, Red China. America had not always had a very strong relationship with the Soviet Union. Two of the world superpowers had been at constant fear of attack by each other during the Cold War.

This Cold War came about for many reasons, two being, Truman’s desire to stop the spread of communism5, and the atomic weapons that each country had. However, the most important factor that created this Cold War was fear. Each country had large, irrational fears of the other, the Americans feared another dictator trying to take over the world, and the Soviets feared a powerful invader6. The Americans had a monopoly on the atomic weapons, and weren’t sharing their secrets; this alarmed the Soviets and prompted them to make atomic weapons of their own.

Each country was unsure of what the other had, thus creating the constant suspicion. Also feeding this fear was propaganda that each country used. In America politicians were constantly telling the American public about the terrors of Communists and how everyone was in danger because of the evil Soviet Communists planning an attack7. The Cold War was an important thing for Nixon to consider because it was still going on and America had been expressing hated toward Communists since the beginning. Visiting China would be good though because it could speed up the end of the Cold war that they were stuck in.

Also recognizing a Communist country that was so close to the Soviet Union would be handy for intelligence purposes, as they would be closer to the enemy and could get a better idea of what was going on, it could also make the war less between Communism and America and focused on the Soviet Union and America. The relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union eventually did ease up slightly. This started in 1952 when Nikita Kruschev paid a visit to America with talks of “peaceful coexistence” between the two countries8.

At the time that he did this he had begun to see his ally China as more of an enemy than America was9. Also at the time the Soviets had, had recent victory over the Americans with the success of the Sputnik satellite, two years prior to the visit. This visit did not create any drastic change or movements towards peace between the two countries, however it was one good step in the direction towards “peaceful coexistence”. This meeting would be a good reason for Nixon to go to China as it shows that two countries that believe and practice completely different forms of government can still meet and recognize one another.

He would want to take pointers from this meeting of good things that Kruschev did while visiting America and expand upon those so that his meeting in China would not only be successful but productive as well, something that Kruschev’s visit was not. During the Cultural Revolution American aided the Nationalist, Republic of China, by giving them nearly 1 billion dollars worth of weapons and other necessities10. America pressured the Nationalist party, led by Chiang to accept some of Stalin’s demands, such as the use of northern ports to expand the Russian economy.

By them meeting these demands they were given full Soviet support, and were recognized by both America and the Soviet Union as the only China11. Having Americans helping the Nationalists very much upset the Communist party, and they ceased peace talks. Then Chaing’s army completely disregarded some advice given by General Marshall, whom was later made the Secretary of State. When Marshall became the secretary of state he would not allow America to further heavily involve itself with the Cultural Revolution. The Korean War was the first time that American and Communist forces had the opportunity to compete.

American forces were helping South Korea from the invading, communist North Korean troops. China had never intended on entering into the war, however when American forces continued to get too close to their border in the intent of taking over North Korea, instead of just helping South Korea in keeping their territory. China had sent out warnings to them, not to get close and so when America got too close, Chou En-lai, the Chinese premier sent out masses of troops, which easily surrounded American and South Korean troops12.

Nixon would have wanted to consider this event before going to China because it was another event in which the Americans were fighting against Communism as well as the Chinese. However, it would be good to go to China because then Nixon would be able to show the world that America was not a sore loser, that despite being brutally attacked by the Chinese they were still able to make relations and work towards peace and prosperity together. The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China had a very poor relationship ever since their split after the Cultural Revolution.

The ROC got Taiwan as their mainland as well as two small islands, Quemoy and Matsu13. These two islands were very close to the mainland of PRC’s China, which was a fact that had always irked Mao. Mao tried to take the islands by force with his military, however unfortunately he was unsuccessful as the ROC had America to support them and Mao had no one as the Soviet Union had not come in time. This was a small event, yet it would be another thing for Nixon to look at. It would be a good thing for America to recognize Red China, as it would be a form of apology for fighting against them previously with their enemy the ROC.

It would show that America has realized which China is the true China, which is something that would please Mao and would make him more likely to be open to trade with America. After the Cultural Revolution in China the issue of their seat in the United Nations Security Council arose. After World War two the UN was created and five of the powerful, victorious countries were placed into permanent seats on the Security Council. These were the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, the United States, and China.

When China split the People’s Republic felt that they should replace the Republic of China on the Security Council as they now represented China. This did not go over well with the United States, who did not want more Communist countries on the council, also the United States were allies of the Nationalist China. An early solution was dual representation, however Mao refused to sit next to another China, as this gives the idea that there were two Chinas, when he was so adamant that his China was the only one. 14 Albania then proposed to admit the People’s Republic of China into the UN, and they were successful in getting the votes.

This got Taiwan out of the Security Council and the People’s Republic in15. The Americans were unhappy about the results, as they had lost face when everyone voted against Nixon’s proposal of dual representation. It would be a good thing for Nixon to go to China and recognize them because it would show that they were still a strong country and that they were ready to move past this one incident. By moving past it they would be able to work together and agree on things, which would be good for both of them to have allies as the more allies a country has the more powerful they become.

Americans, had for a long time completely distrusted all things Communist. The American government used propaganda often to portray to the American public how scary and evil Communists are. They were mostly stories that they built off of the Soviet totalitarian system16. They did this propaganda through books, pamphlets, comics, films, and radio throughout the entire Cold War. The American people were forced to believe that China was a part of this world wide Communist conspiracy to overthrow American power and destroy Western Democracy.

Movies were a popular way of propaganda, as it could show with full images how bad the Communists were such as “Red Nightmare: The Commies are Coming”. Movies, such as that one show Communists coming to America and just destroying everything that made America run. Not all the movies made to demonstrate the evil of Communists had to be just about them, in the James Bond movies filmed throughout the Cold War feature Russians as the bad guy and Bond coming to save the day18, this movie was not about Communism, it just found a very subtle way to further demonstrate that Communists are bad.

Since all the propaganda was fed by the government, Nixon visiting China, a Communist country would be a good first step into changing the views of the American people towards Communists. While America would not need to switch and become a pro-Communism country they could start to settle the dispute against Communist countries. If America could make alliances with a powerful Communist country that could make other Communist countries like them. The United States and the Republic of China had, had amicable past relations.

America had traded with the Republic of China, mostly weapons for years and continued to do so after their split from the Mainland China. The United States really helped Taiwan get started shortly after it formed it’s own China. They did this through enforcing it’s military so that in the event of an attack by the People’s Republic of China, they would be well protected. They also traded with them so that their economy could get going and perhaps gain them some relationships with other countries in the world.

This relationship between Taiwan and the United States is something that Nixon would have wanted to consider before going over to the People’s Republic of China. This is because Mao was still completely refusing to speak the Republic of China, because he hated the idea of Two Chinas. In Taiwan they refused to talk to he People’s Republic until they were no longer a Communist country. By going to Red China Nixon would not necessarily be apologizing to Mao and Chou En-lai about what happened in the past, but would rather be moving on and working towards an alliance, with which they can help each other in becoming even more powerful.

In conclusion, America should recognize the People’s Republic of China. The decision would have taken a lot of consideration but all the good things that would come out of the decision would heavily out-weigh anything negative. Visiting Red China would be a big step in the right direction and would help out the United States in many ways. So despite the American hated for all things Communist an official visit to Communist China would be a very good thing to do.

A specific targeted attack Is needed to dismantle septets of oppression. Marxism alone cannot adequately address inequalities of race and gender because it ignores the historical impacts of race and gender As such critical problems will persist Patriarchy Is not Just a superstructure It is an independent oppressive system which must also be dismantled before true revolution can occur Patriarchal norms will persist In the home (home Is a reflection of society) Marxist revolution alone is not sufficient for gender and race equality

Patriarchy and Capitalism and Racism all oppress women as allied but independent systems Therefore the revolution that Marx envisioned, a society that would operate under equality for all would need to address them as such and challenge them through a combined attack Marx believed that economic change would lead to cultural change and all other forms of oppression would eventually ceases For Marx and Angels women were seen as a the men’s proletariat They concluded that childcare and housework needed to be socialized Assumed that production shapes human consciousness and society

Class takes precedence – class based revolution rather than race and gender based movements Is women’s integration into production enough to make patriarchy fall? Considers the liberation of women and minorities only within the context of a gender-blind, color-blind, class-based society emancipation of those oppressed by class Critics of Marx Marx theory focuses only on work as a means of oppression Minimizes Patriarchy and Racist’s influence by using Communism as a blanketed one size fits all approach to eliminating all forms of oppression

Argue that the dynamics between Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Racism as independent but mutually supportive systems that must be overthrown together Destruction of Capitalism alone will not guarantee that these other systems will be abolished Oppression can continue in the home Creates a double day for women Does not address issues of occupational segregation Which continue to keep women in subjugated positions Creates the risk that the oppressions of women and minorities will be considered a non-integral part of the transition to Communism

Since such oppressions are viewed as superstructures and therefore secondary to economic issues Under this logic Patriarchy and Racism will be allowed to survive which highlights the need for a triangulated approach. Failure to address them as such may lead prevent initiatives to eliminate them from being taken seriously (strictly enforced) Patriarchy and Racism are culturally ingrained It is necessary to disarm the weapons of capitalism in order to neutralize their effects on those that they target.

By allowing these struggles to be viewed as secondary (or simply ignored) The establishment of policies that will address these oppressions will only be dependent on the “whims” of revolutionary leadership Will benefit women and minorities only when there interests align with those of the revolution. Interest convergence) Strong cultural ideals restricting women to the home will continue to discourage them from participating in the workforce Not everything that supports the revolution will necessarily eliminate patriarchy and racism More likely it will lead to half measures which will in turn produce only half successes (gender assigned occupational segregation) Even colonization will continue to perpetuate gaps in workforce participation Revolution alone will not achieve the full scale equality that Marx presumed would follow as a result of the end of Capitalism A society where women and minorities can become full economic partners REQUIRES a re-envisioning of the household so as to professionalism and collective the tasks traditionally performed by each woman in her individual home.

However women are still left with the majority of responsibility for the home and hillier and this only perpetuates patriarchal values about women and men’s places in society Whether commitment to gender and racial liberation is real or mere rhetoric How can we trust a system birthed within oppression of women and racism to truly emancipate either group? All the services provided for women are disproportionately provided by women for example childcare services and even after a revolution they are likely to stay the same since Marxist theory ignores how these systems have manifested : occupational segregation for example. Even if laws are created to address these systems it will be difficult to enforce them within a society that has been conditioned by these racist and patriarchal beliefs and as such will most likely fail to have any meaningful impact Culturally women are Just assumed to take on domestic duties.

That the majority of childcare, nursing, housekeeping are still predominately occupied by women only serves to highlight the cultural significance of patriarchy which Marxism ignores. Even under Marxism this suggests that society would be hesitant to abandon the rotational role of women as the homemaker and therefore ignore how this dynamic would result in women being subjected to a disproportionate burden within society. Which Marxism inherently ignores. As such Marxism fails to address racist and patriarchal institutions which on the surface appear to be race and gender neutral. Racism and Patriarchy are not merely Just cultural ideologies Roles of women and minorities in high leadership positions continue to be lacking.