Solidarity

The term Solidarity refers to the trade union that was organized for workers' rights. They wanted a mass change that was against Communism. When Gorbachev launched his reforms, he created the aspect of democracy in society. The atmosphere contained traces of democracy, and in Poland, the trade union was against communism in a communist country. They wanted equal workers' rights, which was a main aspect of democracy as well. It was formed in Poland, a country all about Communism. It was formed and started gaining much influence for their democratic ideals and their desire of equal rights for all. As they gained support, they also won much control of the country itself, even though they were not a political faction, but more social. Efforts to crush Solidarity were futile, as they had a large majority of support. When the government in Poland was open to elections, members of Solidarity ran for office, and won the majority vote even though the Communists doubted their victory. This was the first step in the fall towards the fall of Communism.
I feel that if Solidarity was never formed, then it is possible that Gorbachev could have kept control over the Soviet Union and prolonged the takeover of democracy. Solidarity was essential to the fall of Communism in the countries in the Soviet Union to take Gorbachev's democratic aspects to the next level. If not formed Gorbachev would have been able to keep control of the Soviet Union, keep his communist reformations and maybe even keep Russia the way it was until today. The countries may have even remained the Soviet Union, and one can only begin to imagine what a power like that could accomplish, as it would still remain a super power. However, the rise of democracy was exponentially increasing, and the would be Soviet Union would inevitable adopt it. In this instance, it brings about the importance of democracy, and that it is the political system that has the most favored aspects among the people back then and today.

America and Iran

During the Iranian Revolution, America had done something to the Iranian people that had upset them to an extent where they claimed America was purely evil. Iran had many oil companies that had oil plants. These oil plants were owned by foreign companies, mainly companies in America. Prime Minster Mossadeq decided to nationalize them, and keep the oil companies for Iran's benefit, which inspired the people and made them very nationalistic as well. However, this would not have been good for the United States, because it was their oil companies, and then they would end up losing money and oil for themselves. To solve this problem, the President, Carter, directed a CIA mission to overthrow the Prime Minister and put in Fazlollah Zehdi, a prime minister "on America's side." This enraged the Iranians, as they lost a major source of revenue, and it made them feel as though the United States was their new authoritarian leader, which they tried so hard to rid their country of with Reza Shah.
In my opinion, I feel as though if American did not interfere in the affairs of Iran, it would have been much different. What if America approved the movement of nationalizing the oil? Would Iran and America maintained the alliance? If the alliance was kept, there would have never been a hostage crisis. Would this be good or bad? Well, if there were no hostage crisis, then the Revolutionary Council would not be put in the legislative branch of their government. Iran may have continued to progress towards democracy by itself, as they would have remained influenced by the United States. Democracy would have found its way to Iran, and I feel as though it would have then arrived earlier. However, there would be a price to pay, as the United States would lose much revenue through the deplete in oil profit, but if it were possible to sustain financial stability without these oil deposits, the United States should have done nothing but support them.

Stalin's Regime

Stalin's regime was from July 19, 1941 to February 25, 1946. Stalin was a communist, following the path of Marxism as he lead the Soviet Union. Stalin focused mainly on heavy industrialization in iron and steel works, however, his industrial plans left many of his people poor and resulted in multiple famines. In 1928, Stalin replaced the Economic Policy with the 5 Year Plans, starting this period of rapid industrialization. After World War 2, Russia became the world's second biggest economy due to these reforms. However, on the dark side of all the reforms and economic progress, the people were forced into labor camps. The regime seemed to be like a complete dictatorship, and most likely was a complete dictatorship. Many dictators as we've seen tend to think of the country first, before the people. Such is the case with Napolean. Napolean's troops were dying and the economy wasn't too good, and neither were the people's lives. However, he thought about the military superiority of the country, instead of the people's well-being. During Stalin's reign, people lived in fear of Stalin's secret police and lived in poverty at the same time.

This wasn't beneficial to the people of social life in Russia. When a dictator makes his people live in fear, the overall emotion and attitude of the people becomes negative. This has been a debatable topic in history, whether or not the people should live in fear or if they should actually live with a leader they love. I feel that when people live in fear of their dictator or government, the chances of having a group of people to go against and rebel against the government. As always, of course, the overall view of a country is better when the leader is widely accepted and the country can be labeled as a "happy" country. For example, this happened in China, under Chairman Mao. Even though the people seemed to be clones of Mao and seemed almost brainwashed, they still accepted their leader with much love, that even boosted China's production. This is because when you have a satisfied working class, your economy will most likely be better than a sad and miserable working class that lived in poverty, i.e., the Russian economy under Stalin.

General Mao's Influence

Chairman Mao's reign, starting at the beginning of the Opium War, is looked upon by today's people as a sort of unreal and unbelievable world. Not because of the strong sense of communism nor the Maoist way of blaming the enemy for disasters, but the cult of personality that Chairman Mao had formed. His mere image was symbolic of China and the global communist movement as a whole. His being influenced every Chinese home, and was also required by law, i.e., every household required a painting of Chairman Mao. He led the working class in a century long struggle against imperialism, feudalism, and capitalism, which were considered evil after the Opium War. Even some today look at Mao as a god-like figure, as he led China to be a powerful and independent nation. During his reign, many works of politicized art were made and circulated through society having Mao as the center or main idea. These included posters, badges, and music. Many said things such as "Chairman Mao is the red sun in our hearts" and a "savior of the people." Mao also had much influence on youth, as they were taught to idolize and, almost worship Chairman Mao. Also, they did not know of the immense suffering and starvation that occurred during his Great Leap Forward. A book known as "The Little Red Book" was also required to be carried around by all citizens of China, as it was written by Chairman Mao. The books was required to be studied and the people were required to live by it and its teachings. Also, a Maoist uniform was worn by most males and females alike, as it was worn by Chairman Mao. However, Mao did not rule with an iron fist or a tyrannical dictatorship; he was actually liked by the common people, especially the working class/peasants. This may be due to the fact that he was trying to make the revolt against the higher classes. However, was all this Maoism and cult of personality a benefit for China? Did it take away individuality amongst the Chinese? Was it fair to the nobility?
I believe, that Mao's cult of personality was beneficial, but also detrimental at the same time. Yes, it did take away the
individuality and freedom of expression of the common Chinese citizen. Many musicians were not allowed to play on the radio unless it was something revolutionary against the nobility or had revolutionary undertones. People did not dress as if the had the freedom to choose. People were told to idolize Mao, and spoon-fed their personalities and opinions. However, this was also good, as it brought the Chinese people together. Having Mao as a leader and also having all the citizens be in unhealthy favor of him definitely increases the feelings of nationalism and that makes China stronger as a nation. Also, it was not like Mao's presence in society was hurting it financially. If anything, inspiring the working class would have made them work harder for their country. Also, towards individuality and preserving it, it seemed as though that if people had a choice, they would still choose Mao's standards of living, because many youth were brought up in Maoist traditions. However, I also believe that China would have not been as successful without Chairman Mao. China needed to be united, so they had to find a regime or ideology they would all believe in. Mao was able to bring in communism into Chinese society quite strongly and managed to save them and start the People's Republic China. This made them feel united, and only a united nation is one that can succeed in its future. This brings up the argument of which is better; a society where all fear the ruler? or a society where all love the ruler? From the events that occurred during Mao's reign, I believe that what Mao had done in Chinese society, be it consciously or unconsciously, was the right move for China.

Was Hindu-Muslim Unity Possible in India during the Independence Movement?

Hindus and Muslims are two religions that share antithetical beliefs and cultures, which they believed disabled them from living together. In some cases, their views were the complete opposite of each other, which was the root cause of the tension between them. Later on, after partition, it was the dispute over Kashmir which causes some tensions today. Muslims were monotheistic, and Hindus were poly theistic. Muslims had different beliefs of the creation of the universe than Hindus. Also, at the time, when people had begun to intermarry and the caste system seemed to slowly fade away, Hindus still were not all right with the idea of marrying with Muslims. Also, in Hindu society, there was a caste system, while in Islam, everyone was equal. Hindus did not want to mix that kind of society with their's. Diet was also different between them, as Hindus did not eat cow because of their beliefs, while Muslims ate all wholesome meats. Problems with the food industry could be anticipated in a society of both Hindus and Muslims. The last major dissension was the theory of the afterlife. Muslims believed that the soul would either go to heaven or hell, on the Day of Judgement. Hindus believed in the reincarnation of the soul until one achieves moksha. A table of differences between the two religions can be found here. During the Independence Movement, relations between Hindus and Muslims were extraordinarily hostile, especially during the times of Direct Action Day and the Partition itself. Seeing this, Gandhi still believed unity was possible.
I feel that, at that time, Hindu and Muslim unity was an unavailing hope. The Muslims' beliefs intermixed with the Hindus' beliefs would not be possible, as their contradictions would not be able to coexist without some sort of tension or dispute. Also, the period of time did not aid the cause, as during that time, there were many more religious devouts that made religion and customs triumph over all, but in today's society, people can look past that and make compromises. However, I'm sure that alliances politically can be formed today, excluding the controversies over Kashmir, but a religious unity of two religions that contradict each other at almost every major religious aspect is simply absurd.

The Bourgeois Society and Marxism

The Bourgeois had much influence during the French Revolution, which is only one example of a class struggle. They are similar to the difficulties between freemen and slaves, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, and guildmaster and journeyman, as said so in The Communist Manifesto. The book also talks of modern industry, and the role the Bourgeois play in a modern and industrial society. The book claims that the Bourgeois were the most revolutionary class during the time, and this was obviously a give-away to the book's marxist view. Also, because it was written by Karl Marx, the book contains many of these undertones. As the book progresses, it starts to dictate that the Bourgeois were becoming a highly financial class, and it was their "constant revolutionizing of the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production..." (62-63). Basically saying that the Bourgeois were the ones that drew nations in civilization.

I am not in favor of the entire Marxist view, however, I do agree that it was the Bourgeois that had brought nations into civilization. A lower class of society, for example the peasants and commoners of the French Revolution, were absolutely incapable of bringing modernization of industry to it, as they could barely afford to feed themselves, let alone revolutionize modern industry. However, the Bourgeois were more than capable, as they were wealthy factory owners and had enough revenue to constantly revolutionize many technological advances in their factories. Another example was James Watt, during the Industrial Revolution. He was not necessarily a part of the Bourgeois of the time, but he was educated, and also had wealth, as his father was a shipwright, and his mother came from a distinguished family and was well-educated.

I do disagree with the point of view of the book, though, as i believe, as an example, the French Revolution could have easily been avoided if the people, meaning the Bourgeoisie and the nobility, had been a little more sensible. Political reform could have been possible without social upheaval, as they were the top classes, they should have been more civilized. I'm sure they were more than capable of reaching an agreement or sorting their issues out themselves. This revolution was merely showing a rebellious aspect of human nature and its intolerance. Instead of their first instinct to sort it out peacefully and properly, they revolted first and then thought about it later.

"Self Help"

"Self Help" was a collection of essays written by Samuel Smiles during the Industrial Revolution. The main philosophy of the essay was that in order to succeed in life, you must continuously work hard and go beyond your limits, if you want success. He also says that the poor are not wealthy, because they do not work hard, and are just lazy. Smiles was born in Scotland, and was one of their 11 surviving children. He left school at 14 and was able to have an apprenticeship along with a doctor. He was raised with the belief that "The Lord will provide." This is quite controversial, as it goes against his initial theory that it is the individual who must look after themselves, and it is not their God that will look after themselves. He does not disprove religion and holy thinking, but he says that it cannot be relied on. Why didn't he just disprove religion? Why didn't he question God's reliability?
Smiles did have a trace of religious philosophy that came from his mother, and how she was raising nine children without a husband, and lived off of the philosophy that God will provide. He saw how hard his mother had worked and used her psychology to write the essay. However, i believe that he realized that one needs a motivation or positive force to fuel their self confidence to succeed, and in his mother's case, it was God.