My thought on Marx and Communism

When we discussed the Decembrist movement in class on Monday, we agreed that it was different from other revolutions. I believe these differences made the revolution unsuccessful. The biggest problem was that there was not enough support behind it. In this revolution, only the noble men participated; it was not a revolution for the noble to have more power. Instead, it was a revolution to give more power and wealth to the peasants. This was one of the first revolutions in history that was started for unselfish reasons and I believe that it is why they did not have support of all the nobles. Another problem was that they failed to get support from the peasants.

I believe the inflexibility of the Monarchy during the 19^th century led to the radical change of the communist revolution. I believe that if some concessions were made in Russia, like in other countries, instead of the never-ending oppression then the communist revolution may have never happened. I believe the people that headed the revolution believed they could not take this oppression anymore, and felt it was the only way. Since they had been oppressed for so long and given no concessions, they took the most extreme anti-monarchy and anti-noble ideas.

I believe this is the reason that no other country had a communist revolution like Russia. All the other countries in Europe ended their serfdom and put in place a capitalist economy. They also somewhat gave into the lower class. I believe that the words of Karl Marx had extra meaning to them due to the fact they were given nothing. As they read his words they were better able to relate to what he was saying over people of other countries.

The way I look at Karl Marx is someone who is an instigator. I feel like if there was a Communist Revolution attempted while he was still alive, he would not take any blame for the occurrences saying that all he did was write a book about what he thought would happen, not what should happen. I believe his “scientific” way of looking at what happened is crap. He just saw one example and applied it to the future saying that it was inevitable. In sciences classes, you learn not to assume things are going to happen. You must first test and then retest; also having your peers test your work before you can say that it is a definite. If you do not retest and have other people test your work, you are made to look like a foul when you are wrong. This is the case with Karl Marx. I feel like Karl Marx enjoyed stirring people up, but would never have taken the leadership role if need be.

Today at the end of class, the question was asked if Karl Marx was wrong then why does nobody in here want to work in a factory. I know people who have worked in factories, and they say it is not that bad, and the pay is good. I know many people today would love to have a factory job. Today, a factory job entails that you will get paid well, no need for a college education, and good benefits. A lot of Michigan’s jobs were factory jobs, and everybody who lost their factory would like it back. I think there is still a bad image of working in a factory, which is not true anymore. For not having a college degree, a factory job is a great option. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, factory jobs were very common. I watch That 70s Show a lot, and when Red (the father of the family) loses his factory job, it takes a long time for him to find another job of close to equal pay. I think factory jobs would be looked at more favorably if they were more common today and the majority had not been sent overseas for cheaper labor.

My Opinion of Napoleon

At the end of class one day this week, we were shown several pictures of Napoleon and asked what images do we have of him and what image should we have of him. Should we see him as a great general who conquered all of Europe, or as a little man who was insecure with his height and felt he had to take over the world? Should we see him as a person who delivered the constitution to all of Europe, or should we see him as being tyrannical? Should we see him as being loved by his army, or should we see him as the man who killed countless men in the desire to be an Emperor. Should we see him as one who represented the average French men, or should we see him as the son of the Devil as many did? Should we see him as someone who conquered France twice, or should we see him as someone who was exiled twice?
We may never know Napoleon’s true reason for wanting to conquer all of Europe. It could have been because of his insecurities with his height. It may have been because he thought he was truly doing something good by delivering a constitution to every country he did conquer. I believe it was to end the rule of Kings and write a constitution for the people.
It is hard to have an opinion about someone who has such contrasting views. He had people representing him one way while there were other people who represented him in a completely different light. How do we know which one is true? He seemed to be loved by the people of France. He was exiled to Elba not by the people of France, but by the rulers of Austria, British, Prussia, and Russia. When he came back to France, he conquered it once again. The very soldiers that were sent to kill him instead joined him. He reigned the nation for 100 days, and I did not hear of any rebellions going on during the time of his ruling. There were rebellions due to Louis XVIII becoming the ruler. He was once again exiled, but once again not by the French people, but by rulers of countries.
He may have been a good man that happened to make mistakes, or he may have been an evil person that did a few good things along the way. I believe in some way he was a good man or he at least he attempted to be a good man that happened to have his downfalls like we all do, but the difference between a ruler having a downfall and an average person having a downfall is that the average person does not have the resources or the public eye on him to do and have those downfalls exposed to the world.
It is very obvious that he was egotistical, but in some ways he had the right to be. He had done something that had not happened since Roman times and that was the conquering of Europe. His other downfall was that he was too prideful to listen to someone about attacking Russia. I think one characteristic that is positive and also negative is his ambition. He was ambitious enough to become ruler of France, but he was too ambitious in attacking Russia. I think the laws he set forth in France were for the betterment of the French people. I do not believe he purposefully set any laws with the intention of hurting people. I believe everything he did; he did for the betterment of the people, not just the French but the Germans, Spanish, and Italians.
He realized that he made mistakes. Even though he did make mistakes, the people of France still loved him. Even though he lost a lot of soldiers, his soldiers still loved him. Today we learned that after he was exiled, and Louis XVIII tried to get people to forget about him and his revolution, people still would yell long live the Emperor instead of saying long live the King. This shows that despite Napoleon's many critics, he was both a good ruler and person, with the right idea in mind, but not always the execution.

My thoughts on the week of June 7-11 discussions and lecture

One day in class this past week, we discussed the Scientific Revolution. I believe that the Scientific Revolution would not have happened so early. If it had not been for Martin Luther and John Calvin having a spiritual reformation before the Scientific Revolution, people would not have begun to question the church in a way that they never had before. This leads scientists to throw their ideas out there of a universe that runs independently from God. If these ideas would not have been put out there before the spiritual reformation happened, people would have been even less accepting to them then they already were. I believe that the Protestants already had questionable doubt about the church. This doubt led them to being more open minded to a universe that runs without God’s intervention.

Another day, we discussed the Philosophes; I believe the people that closely believed in and followed what the Philosophes taught were more likely to believe in the abolition of the slave trade. If they were true followers then they would believe that all men are created equal no matter their skin color; they deserved, at the least, not to travel across the ocean on vessels where as many as 15% died in transit. People who followed the Philosophes carefully should believe that all men are born with a clean slate and that people are born equally. This leads people to question authority because if all people are born equally then who has the right to enslave people based on their skin color.

Today, we talked about Olaudah Equiano and the question of whether or not he was born or even lived in Africa and if it really matters. Personally, I do not think he was born in Africa; I believe he was born in South Carolina. I believe he heard stories from other slaves about Africa and the trip over and later wrote them down in his Interesting Narrative and Other Stories. I believe it does truly matter if he was born in Africa or in South Carolina; It makes parts of his story unbelievable. If he heard the stories from other people and rewrote them even the same way he heard them, everything about what really happened could have changed. This second hand account could be largely based on fabrications of some one else. The reason I believe this is because a person who truly experienced the Middle Passage could have made up facts to make it more interesting. He could have made Africa sound like a better place, and the boat ride over a more horrible experience than what it truly was. I am not saying it was not a horrible experience. This is if Equiano wrote down word for word what he was told. He could have forgotten parts of the story and elaborated it to make the point he wanted to make. Equiano was a very intelligent man there is no doubt about it. I think he knew that if he were born in South Carolina then he his whole story would have been different, and that it would not have had the same impact that he wanted it to have. He could no longer say, look at me, I was born an African and with an education look what I have done. He also knew that without the part about the horrors of the slave ship then he could not have the same anti-slave trade stance that he had. His voice was very influential for the movement, due to his education and his first hand experience, but without that first hand experience his influence would not have been nearly the same. I believe that if he were not born in Africa it would have a made difference at that time and now. His book would not be a historical source; it would have to be used as a fictional story.