Now or Later?

I grew up just across the Georgia/Tennessee state line from Chattanooga, Tennessee. In Chattanooga, there is a restaurant with three locations that serves delicious hamburgers, chicken fingers, hoagies, a variety of traditional Mediterranean and Middle Eastern dishes and desserts, and awesome onion rings that have been voted the city's best for several years consecutively. Ankar's Hoagies was started by an Iraqi family who was able to emigrate from their country right before Saddam Hussein's rise to power. This is only one example, but it's a successful story of people who were able to see the writing on the wall. This week in class, we discussed the limited emigration of Jews and non-Nazi Germans right after Hitler came into power, and the larger scale departure by many Germans from Eastern Germany after the end of World War II.

We touched on it in class, but how do people know when to leave their home? I would think a big indicator would be the immigration/emigration ratio. Right now in the US, there are lot more people trying to get in than trying to get out. But when economic and political conditions sour, that could quickly change. Also, the first people to leave in both situations were successful capitalists and the educated classes. These people are in a position to see past the propaganda, have something to lose, and usually work in fields that allow mobility. I would think their example would be a good one to follow. The third main sign that bad times are coming, would be when the government becomes scared enough to enact laws seizing the assets of any citizens who attempt to leave. Basically, you can go, but all you can take is yourself. I would think if that was to happen, it would be a sure sign that things were going to get really bad, and getting out while there was still the option would be the best thing to do.

I know I've oversimplified the decision of leaving your home as well as everything you have and know based on the chance that a totalitarian government comes into power. Hopefully I'll never be faced with that decision, but I almost feel like if things are bad enough for this action to even be a serious consideration, maybe that's the best sign to be safe rather than sorry, and leave while the option still exists.

Nationalism vs. Patriotism

After reading and discussing the rise of fascism in early 20th Century, the use of nationalism was noticeably important for both Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany. Their appeal to a sense of national unity coupled with powerful public speaking was a potent combination when it came to getting mass support from the citizens. But don't American politicians do the same thing? We've all seen the films of Hitler speaking, surrounded by hanging Nazi flags and crowds of supporters. But how much of a difference is there between what we saw in 1930's Europe and this picture of the last Presidential Inauguration in Washington, DC? During campaigns, political candidates in the US always use red, white, and blue for their logo colors. Support for the troops, higher wages for the working class, and greater efficiency in government are preached at rallies and town hall meetings. So again, why aren't all politicians called out as being nationalists seeking to turn the United States into a fascist state?

The answer is Patriotism. Mark Twain has a famous quote: "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Supporting your country, and embracing patriotism is common in the United States, but so is criticism of the government. The difference between patriotism and nationalism is being willing to disagree with your country when it makes mistakes or has poor leadership. Criticism is not allowed in fascist states, as we discussed with the Blackshirts or SS attacking dissenting citizens. Propaganda is used to keep fuel for criticism out of the hands of the public. In the US, criticism is openly allowed and even protected.

As we discussed in class, the Italian and German citizens knew that fascism would have problems, but supported and allowed it anyway. It reminds me of the parent of a child who has committed a crime. There are those who when interviewed will say what a good person their son or daughter is, and completely deny that they could have any fault or do any wrong. This is not constructive in any way. Then there are those who are willing to admit the truth and be constructive in helping their offspring. Patriotism is the latter, and a healthy amount among the population can not only unify, but help strengthen a nation without the extreme denial of nationalism, and the problems that come with it.

The War to End All Gentlemen's Wars (And A Cartoon)

Woodrow Wilson’s famous dubbing of World War I as “the war to end all wars” would be disproved a few decades later when Nazi Germany invaded Poland to kick off the Second World War. I think a more appropriate name would be “the war to end all gentlemen’s wars.” Every time we discuss the idea of gentlemen’s warfare, I always think about the beginning of Gone With the Wind with all the plantation owners’ sons strutting in their Confederate officer uniforms, hoping for war and excited to get a chance to shoot some Yankees. World War I’s technological advances forced military leaders to have more than just social status, and actually understand strategy and tactics. World War II brought with it men like Patton and Rommel, who rose to their position through effective use of the technology they had at their disposal. This is even more the case in combat today, as the focus is on minimal human losses and a huge reliance on technology.

So the question now becomes, is warfare “better” now? With the gentlemen’s few rules replaced by the complex openness of combat today, there are definitely fewer casualties but the potential losses are far, far greater. Nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and biological warfare are a far cry from the horses and primitive machine guns used in the trenches of France. I personally think military tactics are much better now, and wish we could fight all wars through unmanned aircraft and long-range weapons, but I’m also an American, which skews my perspective greatly. And even though we have made so many advances in weaponry, there is still the necessity of ground troops going door to door. And to those men, I am thankful.

On a lighter note, here is World War I awesomely explained in cartoon form.

A Different Opinion, Maybe

Thorstein Veblen’s piece “Conspicuous Consumption” fits quite well with Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto. Both writings are critical of the bourgeoisie and their lives of excess. After reading “Conspicuous Consumption,” I couldn’t help but think of how Marx would cry “Exploitation!” and adamantly argue how the bourgeoisie were able to live a life of lavishness because of the disadvantaged lives of the proletariat. While he has a valid point, I don’t necessarily agree. I know in class we’ve been discussing Communism and the Industrial Revolution in the ways it continued to stratify classes, as well as the hardships and seemingly exploitative class interacting, but I’d like to look at it from a different perspective. I know as an American I’m expected to believe in capitalism and to quote Jennifer, “that Communism is evil, it failed and it is not the American way.” I acknowledge that this is how I was raised, but want to explain myself.

The bourgeoisie is able to live the way it does and consume conspicuously because of the work of the proletariat. I don’t think many would argue with this. But I don’t think the proletariat is being taken advantage of in the way Marx would like me to believe. The bourgeois business owners provide jobs, insurance, and benefits for the proletariat. Also, by buying superfluous goods and spending so much, more jobs are created for the proletariat to manufacture and sell these items. In short, the business owners are providing the means for the working class to make a living and support their families. On top of providing employment, the bourgeoisie also assumes all risk in the market. I know this is simplified, but if a business fails, the working class will experience difficulties between jobs, but will eventually find another job, most likely of equal pay. Now compare this to the business owner’s situation as his way of life is crumbling. He may take out a personal loan or borrow from family members to try and stay afloat. A malpractice suit or disbarment brings not only personal shame but also the negation of years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in education and business investment/startup. I feel like this is easy to overlook, and we are often quick to villainize the big bad business owners without taking into account the deferred gratification, time, and effort these people put in to reach their position of privilege. Of course, there are always exceptions, but I believe my point is valid in most instances.

To wrap things up, I would like to warn against the first choice solution to these problems: the State. It is important to keep in mind that most if not all social reform legislation was brought about because of men like Upton Sinclair or special interest groups. In short, private individuals and organizations. This is still the case today with independent filmmakers and non-profit organizations. I recently read where the US’s progressive tax system is set-up in a way where an individual earning $32,000 a year will not see a net gain until they earn more than $37,000. On a percentage basis, that’s a pretty big gap. So before we jump on the bandwagon of increasing taxes for the rich, let us keep in mind that these rich are the same people who provide us with braces, summer jobs, and teach us in lecture halls and labs. So maybe the first place to look for reform isn’t at the top of the tax bracket, but the bottom. And maybe the group we look to for help first is the one exploiting the proletariat most of all.

Liberal, Nazi, fascist, socialist, anarchist, communist...

Reading Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto is something I’ve been meaning to do on my own for quite some time, and this history class gave me the chance along with some academic motivation. I think it’s important to read and understand differing viewpoints, even if you have a pretty good idea that you’ll disagree with it before going in. I kept this in mind when reading The Communist Manifesto, and tried not to let my prejudice towards communism interfere with learning. What I gained most from my reading is a better understanding of the differences in varying forms of socialism, communism, and the ideas of Marx and Engels. It is easy to group these all together when discussing politics or government, and it is in my opinion that doing so is a huge mistake. This mislabeling of political ideas has always been an annoyance to me, and I think now it will be greater.

The most common perpetrators are unfortunately those with the greatest exposure: political commentators. On any given night, it’s easy to find Glenn Beck calling President Obama a socialist, or read an article online outlining all the reasons Former Vice President Dick Cheney is a fascist war criminal. This practice of broadly labeling political figures has rubbed off on the American People, and is evident in TV interviews or discussions with friends and family. It’s frustrating for me with what little knowledge I have, so I can’t imagine what it’s like for political scientists and economists to hear the misappropriation of political views constantly. Before the 2008 election, I spent a considerable amount of time watching candidate debates and reading commentary, but quickly realized this was going to be little help. Political “experts” were calling Barack Obama a liberal Nazi, which I didn’t know existed, and dismissing Ron Paul as a crazy old man, while I was 18 years old and agreed with much of what Paul had to say. Over time I learned to select my sources carefully, take everything with a grain of salt, and read opposing views. Then I could decide on my own.

So what I’m getting at with this blog post is the answer to the discussion question asking the purpose of The Communist Manifesto in a post-Communism world. My answer is to provide a direct source, and the opportunity to form your individual opinion instead of merely picking a second-hand idea you sort of agree with. I’m so glad we have the chance to read this and to really understand the basic principles of communism, socialism, and Marxism. I also champion the writings of people such as Hamilton and Hayek, who are once again the original source for many political ideas being currently practiced or that could possibly be practiced. I wish more people took the initiative to read these early writings, as I think it would end a great deal of confusion or for no other reason than to avoid sounding like a fool. Referring to a leader’s ideas under the wrong name in a political discussion is on the level of telling a friend you hope Tiger Woods hits a home run through the goal post, and that’s just awkward for everyone.

Cartoons are Supposed to be Funny

My parents, and particularly my dad, are avid newspaper readers. Growing up, they would always show me the political cartoons. As a child, I was much more interested in the caricatured interpretations of people I saw on TV than the message. They would explain them to me, and I wouldn’t think much more of it. As I got older, I thought they were lame and was not impressed with the goofy drawings or whatever boring statement was being made. Cartoons are supposed to be funny, and these were not. Once in high school, my AP US History teacher would spend time showing us political cartoons from whatever time period we were studying at that point in the semester. It wasn’t until then that I realized these cartoons had significant cultural and historical importance. Now in college, I don’t ever look at the newspaper but I am a regular reader of The Economist. I make a point to look at the political cartoons in each weekly edition, as well as KAL’s cartoon online, and finally have a genuine appreciation for both the work and message.

Studying the depictions of Napoleon Bonaparte in political cartoons was very interesting this week, and I’m glad we had an entire class period to spend. It’s interesting that the overall style of political cartoons hasn’t changed too much in all this time, although their significance has. In Napoleon’s time, many were illiterate and could understand a simple drawing better than struggling through a block of text. Although literacy rates are much higher now, we still use cartoons in news publications. They may not carry the weight that they did 200 years ago, but they are often the most affective way to get a point across. I don’t think political cartoons from our time period will be considered as much an important part of recorded history like the ones about Napoleon, but they are definitely of cultural importance. We no longer have to worry about political leaders destroying newspaper print shops or arresting a dissenting blogger, but they are still a valuable way for people to show how they feel about prominent figures and world events.

The cartoons about Napoleon were brutally honest, and definitely showed me he was not viewed by everyone as the exalted military leader he’s often depicted as. It’s easy to forget there are at least two sides to every historical event or person, and the cartoons were a great way to get in touch with what the average person may have felt at that time.

Dare to know or status quo?

German philosopher Immanuel Kant used the phrase Sapere Aude, or "dare to know," as the motto for the Enlightenment movement. While this sounds impressive and contributes to the idea of the common people forming their own ideas, rising up, and confronting the established societal norms, I'm not so sure this was the most descriptive motto.

The philosophes were educated men who had the means to spend their time contemplating things such as education, slavery, and of course religion. These were issues undoubtedly on the minds of common people, but not at the top of their priorities when compared with survival and fulfilling their assigned role in society. The increasingly widespread access to the writings of philosophes was good in the sense of the masses having another opinion other than that of the church or their king's, but I don't think it was the catalyst for a widespread craving of knowledge. In my opinion, the majority of people during the Enlightenment didn't start to form their own ideas, but instead chose a philosophe who they mostly agreed, and followed. It was not the "maturing" of people as Kant had hoped, they were simply choosing to rely on a different source. I think this can be attributed to the lack of widespread recorded knowledge, and don't blame the philosophes. But I also don't think they should be given credit for sparking a large scale thirst for learning and philosophical movement.

I believe the age we live in today is the first truly enlightened time, as we have achieved the pinnacle of Diderot's Encyclopedia with the advent of the Internet. It is now much more difficult to remain "immature" with access to the greatest resource and exchange of knowledge in history at our fingertips. So, perhaps "now you have two choices instead of one" is a better motto for the Enlightenment. It's just as catchy, right?