Week 11 and 12: Russian Revolution

This blog assignment is due Monday, April 4.

In his famous April Theses, Lenin repudiated any attempt at collaborating with the Provisional Government on the grounds of its disingenious handing of democracy: while promising to call the Constituent Assembly, new Russian government kept on withholding recognition from the Soviets and waging the war which has long lost much of popular support.

Rosa Luxemburg, on the other hand, accused the Bolsheviks of supplanting democracy with dictatorship of a small party clique. Although she saw this in the light of hardships befalling the young Bolshevik Russia, her observation concerning the emerging party state proved nothing short of prophetic.

I want you to reflect over the question which had troubled politicians, historians and ordinary citizens alike ever since the momentous events in 1917: namely, why did the Party, claiming to support unequivocally principles of democratic rule, became the basis of a new dictatorship? Was it, as Rosa Luxemburg asserted, the result of unfortunate circumstances of war and occupation into which the Republic was born? Or was that evolution inscribed into the inner code of the Party itself, as an element of its program or a part of an algorithm pushing it towards dictatorship with an ineluctability of а chrysalis pupating into a butterfly?

Week 10 World War I

You have taken a look at two documents, each of which was designed as the blueprint of the world order to be established in the wake of the First World War. The 14 Points of President Wilson were publicized while the war was still raging, its outcome being far from determined. The Treaty of Versailles, with the articles of which you had a chance to familiarize yourselves, was signed with Germany defeated and its allies (Bulgaria being the exception) fully erased from the European map.

Which of the two blueprints seemed, in your opinion, as embowering an opportunity for achieving a goal it set for itself - presumably, one of the lasting peace? Here you have to distinguish the issue of fairness from that of feasibility - i.e. treatment deemed as fair does not necessarily appear among the available options, as states (just as people) find themselves often moved and motivated by considerations other than justice (vengeance, for instance).

You might decide that none of the documents contained provisions for the lasting peace. In that case you are free to offer your own arrangement which might have indeed worked better than the solutions stemming from the seasoned diplomats.

Week 9 Road to War

The peace which Europe had enjoyed before the outbreak of the First World War was nearly unprecedented in its duration - more than forty years lie between last large-scale conflict and the catastrophe which befell the continent in 1914. Yet, at the same time that very period was pregnant with an extraordinary bellicosity, in the light of which it looked more like a necessary armistice, a temporary respite rather than a conscious decision to avoid resorting to arms in solving international disputes.

Both Mark Twain and General Bernhardi testify to the widespread social acceptance of the war; the former does it by means of sarcastic ridicule and the latter by that of lofty exhortation.

What were, in your opinion, the reasons for adopting warlike attitudes with such a facility if not incredulity? Europe was far from being inexperienced in the art of self-destruction, yet, that experience did not seem to have reduced the allure generated by visions of grand battles. Combining texts you read with the lecture materials, you need to interrogate the roots of the sentiments which, without making it inevitable, rendered the option of war by and large admissible.

Week 8 Imperialism

I offer you to take a closer look at the phenomenon of Imperialism and answer one of the two questions posed below:

1. Kipling described imperialism as the burden that "the white man" needs to carry despite the resistance and "thanklessness" of the natives.

What do you believe were the major motives behind the European and American drive towards the establishment of colonial empires? Was economics primary? How important was the issue of national prestige? How sincere were the talks of "civilizing mission" and the "white man's burden"? Perhaps reasons lie elsewhere - it is for you to discover or uncover them.

2. Together with Orwell, I would like you to consider the effects of Imperialism on Europe. Was it truly a way of depriving the colonial oppressor of his agency, as Orwell suggests? Was the European psyche habituated to violence as the result of that experience - a kind of habituation explaining much of the brutal character of the subsequent world wars?

Week 6-7

I offer you to to respond to one of the two questions posed below:

1. The Revolutions of 1848-1849 shook Europe, leaving, however, but few marks of change in their wake. No new state had emerged and of the new regimes brought to power as a result of revolutionary turmoil only that in France merits mention. So, how shall one then evaluate 1848? Could one judge it as success from the perspective of the revolutionary participants, or was it, on the contrary, a triumph for the forces of order? Then again, perhaps the categories of failure and success do not capture the event and its spirit? Be that as it may, I would like to hear your opinion on that subject.

2. Both the unification of Italy and the creation of Germany passed within a short period of time and with a relative ease (especially the Italian unification). That might compel one to reflect over the question of why, given that ease, neither of the processes had taken place before. Did both the Italians and the Germans simply ripen for the national sovereignty? Were the geopolitical conditions auspicious for the execution of such designs? Or is one mistaken appraising the said events as swift and easy, being as they were far from accomplished?

Week 5 Birth of Ideologies

The parallel upheavals in the domains of politics, economics and social life running from the last third of the eighteenth century well into the nineteenth left a number of unresolved quandaries in their wake. Having revealed the power of a human being in shaping his own affairs, the Revolutions - both the French and the Industrial - stopped short of elucidating the relationship between the collective and the individual in an unambiguous fashion. That question constitutes one of the central intellectual legacies of Modernity at its birth.

The new ideologies represented then tentative answers to the aforementioned dilemma. I offer you then to take a closer look at the three texts assigned for this week (de Maistre, Hobhouse and Marx) to show where each of the authors - ideologues - locates the crucible of social creativity. In other words, how does each of the authors understand "agency"? What is the mainspring of historical action? In your answer you might proceed by comparing/contrasting visions represented in your texts.

Week 4 Industrial Revolution

The riddle posed by the Industrial Revolution is nearly inscrutable. How could we account for the sudden flourishing of that acquisitive instinct that, long dormant, seized upon novel socio-economic contingencies and fortuitous inventions to transform the landscape of the Continent beyond recognition?

Stemming from obscure origins, the Industrial Revolution left highly dubious fruits - at least in its very immediate wake, before being tempered by the aggrieved public reaction.

My question to you then is to evaluate the immediate consequences of the Industrial Revolution. Looking at the glowing account of mechanization presented by Andrew Ure and the exceedingly grim stories of exploitation and mistreatment offered by the early factory workers, one cannot help wondering about the possibility of ever reconciling these views. To attempt to do justice to both of them is the task for you.