Mao vs. Gorbachev: Was it all up to them?

 

Although the Chinese and Eastern European Revolutions were similar due to their being surrounded by Communism, the different revolutions were far from identical. The idea of Communism was a large part in each revolution. However, the main difference between the revolutions was that in China, Communism was elected and desired. In Eastern Europe, Communism was forced upon the government by Russia's "Red Army." Communism is a large commitment for any country. For it to work effectively, the country needs to be fully committed to the obligations and rules necessary. Chinese citizens, under Mao Zedong, may not have been fully for Communism, but Mao certainly was. Mao was very oppressive and wholly believed that Communism was attainable and would bring success to China. This is the main reason why the Chinese Revolution of 1949 differed greatly from the Eastern European Revolutions in 1989. In Eastern Europe, Gorbachev was a very passive leader. He realized that medaling with other countries' affairs would get him into trouble. Therefore, with his speech to the United Nations, Gorbachev openly announced that he agreed to not interfere with the matters of his people. In other words, Gorbachev allowed revolution to occur. In my opinion, the reason all of the revolutions were nonviolent was due to this air that Gorbachev gave off. Although he did not oppose Communism, he accepted that his people did not want it. Gorbachev had very important characteristics of a great leader. He listened to his people, even if their ideas conflicted with his own. The Chinese Revolution was violent because Mao was a dictator and did not take into account the feelings of his citizens. He wanted Communism and nothing was going to change that. Most Eastern European Revolutions severely contrasted the Chinese Revolution, however one was different: the extremely gory revolution of Romania. In Romania, Ceausescu was a Communist and wanted Romania to be Communist. This resistance, stemming from the leader, ultimately created a harsh circumstance that led to violent uprisings.

The Religious Force of the Iranian Revolution

Each revolution that we have studied, including revolutions in America, France, Russia, and India, has been pushed by a specific idealogical force pertaining to the country's particular troubles. For the French and the American Revolutions, the desire for change quite exclusively came about due to the spreading of Enlightenment ideals. The ideals of freedom and equality spread throughout the great nations of America and France, making a revolution inevitable. The Chinese and Russian Revolutions were influenced by the idea of Communism. Communism and Enlightenment are both ideologically backed, as well as the Indian Revolution which was propelled forward by Gandhi's idea of "Satyagraha." Satyagraha is a form of nonviolent resistance that influenced the entire revolution in India. The Iranian Revolution differs from the other revolutions because the ideology behind it was religious. This is different from the others; however, it does not necessarily mean that the revolution in India was not impacted by an ideal. The Iranian Revolution was still a typical revolution, regardless of it being Islamic based.

Life under Mao during the Cultural Revolution vs. Life under Lenin and Stalin in Russia

Chairman Mao himself believed that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China was necessary because he felt that the government had become too bureaucratic. Essentially, Mao was fixated on mobilizing the masses. Mao and Lenin were very similar rulers, even though they were not huge fans of each other. Mao stated that "power grows from the barrel of a gun," whereas Lenin agrees that no progress can occur without violence. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao wanted all symbols of old China to disappear; Lenin was also very opposed to imperial Russia and wanted to make a change. The two leaders came to power in very similar ways. Both men laid low until the government was weak enough to be overthrown, after the government got overthrown the two men were waiting to be named leader of the new government.

Lenin was a pretty bad man, however his successor, Stalin, was even worse. Both Mao and Stalin saw everyone as a threat. Any person suspected of having counter-beliefs to one of the two men were either mysteriously murdered or exiled. Stalin liquefied the Kulaks, and Mao killed off party officials and intellectuals. Mao and Stalin were both power hungry. Both Mao and Stalin used manipulation to get power. Mao sent people to labor camps if they did not listen to him, whereas Stalin was very manipulative in his general rule. Neither men were very religious, however they portrayed themselves as gods. Stalin believed Mao to be an ignoramus, however they did many of the same things. Stalin merely believed Mao to be an idiot because he believed in the peasants, whereas Stalin followed a traditional Marxist belief that the proletariat had to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

If Gandhi Were Around During the American Revolution...

Mohandas Gandhi invented the method of "satyagraha." In short, satyagraha is a form of nonviolent protest. Techniques of satyagraha include: civil disobedience, boycotting and hartal (or labor strikes). Many people believe that the American Revolution did not have to happen when it happened. Some people even believe that there did not have to be a war at all. The colonies, in the 1770's, did not have one figurehead to guide them through their rough times, and that is why the revolutionary war exploded so abruptly. Technically, the American citizens were not being overly corrupted by their mother country, Great Britain. In reality, the colonies wanted to be separate from England and wanted to be free due to the rapid spread of Enlightenment ideals. This desire for freedom from the original colonies was inevitable, however the war could have been avoided. If Gandhi lived in colonial America, during the 1770's, and spread his techniques of nonviolent protesting, the war could have been postponed or eliminated completely. The outcomes of all revolutions are greatly determined by the quality of the leaders. If Gandhi was able to unite all of the people in the colonies under one common cause—to gain freedom from Great Britain—the British parliament would have had no choice to give them what they were asking for. Not to mention, if they all did so nonviolently, the British would have been happy to comply with their requests. However, there may have been some difficulties in the colonies with Gandhi’s satyagraha method. Gandhi was able to make his citizens of India look past their religious beliefs and not consider themselves Hindus or Muslims, but Indians. The colonists were, for the most part, united religiously; however, in the colonies, religion was not a monumental thing. The colonists cared about their religions, but they did not discriminate against other religions. Therefore, unlike in India, there were no religious disputes in colonial America. There were other internal disputes, though. Instead of the colonists being segregated by religion, they were separated based on whether or not they considered themselves British. If Gandhi was the leader of colonial America, and succeeded in uniting the colonists against the British, parliament would have seen, through nonviolence, that it was time to let the colonies go.

A Luxury of Communism

(http://www.comite-valmy.org/IMG/jpg/marx_engels.jpg)

According to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" (Marx/Engels 57). In the eyes of Marx and Engels, a communist society has no class conflict because, according to Marx, history ends at Communism. Therefore, a communist society seems utopian because no one is ever concerned with money and everyone always receives enough to survive. An ideal communist society is unattainable because a country cannot exist without conflict because it is human nature to have a desire for bettering oneself and for surpassing other people in all things. However, one of the true luxuries of an ideal Communist society is the ability to pursue a career without considering the annual salary. In a capitalist society, it is a rarity for people not to review the monetary value of a job before they take it. Capitalist societies are the opposite of communist societies: in capitalist societies people are constantly concerned with money and wealth, in communist societies all workers get payed around the same amount. In a capitalist society, if a person is extremely wealthy, he or she can pursue any job he or she wants (with as little a paycheck as it gets). However, that is not like human nature. Capitalistic human beings constantly want more… and the more they have, the more they want. Therefore, it is very rare for a rich person to want to merely be a waiter or waitress for the rest of his or her life. (Although it does happen!) The only people in a capitalist society who do not have to worry about high paying jobs are the very elite people. In a society so captivated by money, the poor and lower middle class people who need to make money will do anything to get it, because they want to survive. Hypothetically, in a capitalist society, if a woman in the lower middle class feels very passionately about theater and wants to teach a children’s acting class for the rest of her life, she would have to consider the monetary value of the occupation. If the salary does not fit her needs then she will drop her dream and become something else that will support her needs throughout the years. Despite the fact that a utopian Communist society is rather unrealistic, it is the only true time that all people can pursue their passions.

The Samuel Smiles Theory: Unattainable then, achievable now?

(http://img.tesco.com/pi/Books/L/67/9781905940967.jpg)

Samuel Smiles gave his advice to the public by publishing his first book Self-Help in 1859. Self-Help consisted of a series of opinionated essays by Smiles; the book became exceedingly popular almost instantaneously. In his book, Smiles maintained the common theme that "heaven helps those who help themselves," which means that with some help from God, men and women are able to decide their own destinies. Most people from the upper-middle class, at that time, felt empowered when reading Self-Help. However, the book did receive a broad span of reviews mainly because, in expressing his beliefs, Smiles used a few harsh words. When Smiles wrote Self-Help, during the industrial revolution, people were still being born into certain social classes. Therefore when he says that it is the poor's fault that they are poor, the lower class people may have gotten insulted because that may not have been the case at all. In Smiles' book he does not take any external hardships into account. The lower-class people may be poor because they got robbed, or their house burned down, or their parents died. There are many reasons why lower-class people could have been poor with help from external sources. Also, back then it was extremely difficult to jump to different social classes, therefore with Smiles saying that everyone has the power to achieve their goals and move up in life, it may seem a bit insulting to all of the hardworking people who could not move up a class even though they were trying remarkably hard, it just so happened that they were not getting paid very much at all.

Although, in my opinion, Smiles’ view on life was rather unattainable during the late 1800s, I believe that Smiles’ philosophy pertains to present day. There are numerous opportunities for people in the 21st century; if a person wants something more than anything, there are no rules that say that he or she cannot achieve that goal. Especially since there are not set social groups, and no one is born into a certain group of people. With public schools present in every town, poor people all over are able to get educations. After all, everything can be stripped away from a person; everything, other than his or her education. Therefore, as long as a person has an education, he or she can build him or herself up from scratch with the confident, determined mindset that he or she can achieve any goal.