The gadfly

5 Steps on How to Stay Motivated While Pursuing Your Goals

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:34:00 +0000

You really want to do something and are all psyched up. You tell yourself nothing will stop me. But after couple of weeks you might start saying "Meh, This is quite boring." So, have you ever wondered why that intense sensation that made you start something new quickly faded away in couple of weeks?

Every person can succeed in life. However, for this premise to come to real life, some steps have to be taken.

1. No matter how big your goals are, always divide them into smaller steps.

This is probably the most important thing you can do in order to stay motivated in your aims. For example, don't just say "I'm going to learn how to speak Russian in 1 years time." Instead say "I'm going to learn the Cyrillic alphabet in 1 week, then learn 20 Russian words every day." These kind of short term goals will help you keep focused.

2. After dividing the steps towards your goal, praise yourself for every step you finished.

This will help you stay motivated and refuel your excitement and rage to succeed constantly. Also, this positive attitude will make you an optimist and reduce your stress if you have relatively short time to finish your goal.

3. Find like minded people that have similar goals.

By doing this you will find it easier to get motivated. Forums and blogs are great for finding like minded people online. Family members and friends would be even better, as you would be also improving your relationship with them.

4. When facing difficulties, think of how you would feel when you succeed.

You'll be one year older next year, no matter what you do. Believe me! So, if you can cope up with difficulties in the end you would be much richer (skill wise!).

5. While implementing all of these, try not to get too focused.

Nobody will like you if you become obsessive.

Don't just focus on one thing. Spread your interests! So, you won't become obsessed with your goals and rule out the present.

Comparison of Aristotle's and Plato's Human Function

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:35:00 +0000

HUMAN FUNCTION: INTERPRETATION of LIFE

Since the dawn of time people have thought about how they came into existence and what their purpose in this hostile environment is. Plato and his successor Aristotle were the first to adhere a function to human life. Plato believed that a just soul and a just man would live well and therefore would be happy (Plato, 31). Aristotle claimed that human function is living accordance with reason and distinctive human virtue (Aristotle, 12). Both of these were attempts to interpret life. In this essay I will deal with whether there is a human function, whether we need to fulfill this function in order to be happy and whether being virtuous helps us become happy.

According to Plato function of each thing is what it alone can do or what it does better than anything else (Plato, 30). Aristotle would have agreed likewise in this definition. So, for example the function of a knife is sharpness or the function of a refrigerator is preserving food well. These kind of entities are made by people for other peoples' convenience. Therefore it is normal that the function of these kind of things are what they are designed for, because the creators are human. So a knife does not declare that the function of a knife is sharpness. Only a higher entity can determine its' function. Sheep are another good example. If there is a sheep somewhere around the world who is as wise as Plato or Aristotle, would probably say that the function of a sheep is living a just life. However, in the eyes of a human being the function of a sheep would be much more different and simple. It would probably be producing high amounts of milk and growing fat so it would have more meat when it is killed. This is again as a result of the fact that human are more advanced and more intelligent than sheep. So how come two mortal can determine the function of the human being in general? And if they can determine the human function, wouldn't it be something similar to the function the sheep attributed to themselves. For example, according to God the function of human beings is worshipping him and praising him. Or maybe human beings are just actors in a reality show that is videotaped to amuse other aliens. Then the function of humanity would be acting in a nice and cute way. Or maybe none of those creatures exist and "...Man is nothing else but that which makes of himself."(Sartre). In any case, it is easy to see that determining a human function that is valid for everyone is pretty hard. Also another question is why do both of the philosophers insisted on a function that seems to be something objectively good, such as justice? We have mentioned that function of each thing is what it alone can do or what it does better than anything else. Human being is the only creature that can build mass destruction weapons, so does that make the function of human beings as destruction? Only a person can cheat in an exam so, does that make the function of human beings deceit? The examples can go on and on. I think that while trying to determine the human function Plato and Aristotle are approaching the subject way too simplistic and are over generalizing by claiming that the function of human beings is living a just life or living according to reason. I believe that there is no human function that everyone can agree on.

We have mentioned that determining a human function that encompasses all humanity is impossible. Therefore everyone can reach happiness in different ways. According to Aristotle, there is a general agreement among everyone that happiness is sought for its' own sake only (Aristotle, 5). Therefore, happiness is the highest ranked good. From his work we can conclude that while seeking for happiness the end will justify the means. A person can become happy just by helping the poor. Another person can be happy by gambling in Las Vegas. It does not matter whether the appetitive part or rational part is in control during the process as long as happiness is achieved. This might sound immoral, but it is the reality. Any sane person would want to be happy. Knowing or without knowing, we always choose our actions depending on the happiness they will bring to us. As you can see there is no secret distinct function that needs to be fulfilled to reach happiness. Every person from birth, by choosing their actions determine what the outcome of their life will be. Based on their actions they grow different habits and choose different lifestyles. So some take joy from earning money, others become happy from deceiving. Because there is no distinct human function, there is no need to fulfill a specific function to be happy. An objection can be raised about the morality of how happiness is achieved. It turns out that because happiness is the highest good, there is no force to stop people from doing wicked things to pursuit happiness. This is where customs, regulations, laws, religious rules etc. come into play. They increase the penalty of doing bad things to reach happiness. For example, let's say that we offer 500,000 $ to a poor man to become a hitman. Even though he might find the idea of killing someone revolting and highly immoral, he would eventually weigh in the pros and cons of the offer. He would roughly calculate how many years he would be able to feed his family with the money he is offered, which would make him happy. He would also consider what his conscience says. If the pros weigh more he would accept the deal. Now if we put laws, customs etc. into the equation we would see that the fear of punishment and the risk of being condemned by the society would make that person less reluctant to accept the deal and the amount of money offered would have to raise significantly. If we also take religious rules into account, fear of eternal punishment and burning would probably put off that person altogether from the deal. Therefore, there are external factors that stop from doing whatever they want to achieve happiness.

Being virtuous is one of the many ways to become happy. According to Plato the four must virtues are moderation, courage, wisdom and justice. It is highly probable that a person that has these traits is happier than a person who has the opposite of these. A coward person would let his fears control him. Therefore, he wouldn't be able to endure the path of happiness. For example, a courageous person, who is the master of his fears (Mark Twain) would be ready to fight with any force that comes to steal his happiness from him. A moderate person would be content with the things he has and thus will be reluctant to stay happy. A wise person would know what would make him happy. But does a person really have to have all these traits to be happy? For example a person who is moderate but is not wise can be happy. Since wisdom is present in only a few number of people in a society this is a common situation. A carpenter who only knows how to mould wood can still be happy if he doesn't meddle with other peoples' jobs. As the saying goes "Ignorance is bliss" a person who does not know much about the world would have less issues to get worried about and therefore would be happy. History is full of wise people who have committed suicide or lived miserable lives. But, nonetheless a person who is wise is more likely to be happy than a person who is unwise.

To conclude, there isn't a human function that everyone can agree on. Therefore, people do not need to fulfill a specific human function to be happy. Being virtuous is only one of the many ways to become happy.

WORKS CITED

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, translated and introduced by D. Ross, Oxford University

Press (1998)

Plato, The Republic, translated by G.M.A. Grube, revised by C.D.C. Reeve, 2nd edition,

Hackett (1992)

Comparison of Plato's "Republic" with Machiavellis' "Prince"

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:31:00 +0000

Machiavellis’ Prince: The Art Of Politics

Politics has been regarded by the people as corrupted and filthy since the dawn of man. Thus, it is normal for people to understand and get in touch with the writings of Machiavelli easier than Platos’. However, people tend to be inspired more from Palto, because his leadership theory is what people have idealized throughout time. Unfortunately the perfect is not always the best and I believe that for a leader being realistic and having a pragmatic approach towards life is much more important than living in an idealistic world.

Machiavelli

As I have stated in the introduction, realism is a strong attribute in Machiavellis’ Prince. He uses various examples from the history to clarify his opinions, which is a clear plus over Plato. For instance on being despised and hated the example of Roman emperors are given (Machiavelli, Chapter 19) and on liberality the example of Pope Julius the Second is given (Chapter 16). This argument can be challenged with the fact that Plato lived nearly 1700 years earlier than Machiavelli and could not witness or read enough about leaders. This defence has valid points However, it further proves that his ideas do not correspond to modern times and is not valid for our epoch. It should not be interpreted that I am whole-heartedly against Plato’s idealism. If successful leaders’ lives are observed, it can be seen that they had ideals and visions to start with. Without these, those leaders would have been susceptible to failure. For example, Lenin would have given up because of the civil war that started after 1917 Revolution (Lefebvre, 150) or Atatürk would have called quit after the loss of Mosul and Keokuk. Thus, some abstract thinking and vision is needed for a leader. However if this much idealism reaches the levels of Plato’s work it would be troublesome for the state, because the leader would lose contact with reality. For instance, Plato mentions that leader-philosophers will not own private property (Platon, 417a-b) or leader-philosophers will govern the country without the desire of private gains (520d). These are just few examples of his work that I think are too idealistic to adapt to life. Even in communist/socialist states[1] private property was allowed from time to time and ironically the Russian Communist Party members were the ones who had private property in forms of cottages etc. (Duvall 1992). It is also naive to think that without private property leaders will not desire private gain. Property is not the only thing people strive for. The feeling of power that comes from leadership is a private gain which the leader would not want to give up easily, because of simple human nature. As can be seen from my claims Platos’ leadership theory was too abstract and lacked the crucial element, realism.

Another strong aspect that exists in Machiavelli but lacks in Plato is practical use in other words, pragmatic approach. Before I start, I would like to indicate why I am mentioning pragmatism and realism in different paragraphs. Realism is the way how you see life. On the other hand pragmatism is the way you act towards life. As you can see there is a big difference between them. In his book Machiavelli takes a pragmatic approach towards life for leaders. In his book he states that a wise lord will not keep good faith if the reasons he pledged exist no longer or his good faith is exploited (Chapter 18). Here we can see his pragmatism more clearly. He shows us that for the sake of being idealistic and being honest a leader should not blindly stay behind his words. That kind of behavior can backfire easily and result in leader losing his throne. Another statement where we can see his pragmatic approach is in Chapter 19 where he advises the leader to please the class that has the most power. Hence, if the soldiers have more influence over the state, the king should advocate war. If the people have more influence over the state, the king should be tempted to peace. An important factor of Machiavelli’s pragmatism is his emphasis on modesty. In nearly all his chapters he suggests the leader to take a humble path. For instance, on being despised and hated he states that even if the most influential class is soldiers the leaders should not be too cruel and if the most influential class is ordinary people he should not be too kind. In both scenarios he would be overthrown either by the people for being cruel and by the soldiers for being too kind (Chapter 19). In Platos’ work it is nearly impossible to see any pragmatism and therefore practical use. He formulates everything and regards society as robots. He strictly divides the society to three classes which are soldiers, rulers and people (415a). He gives all of them different tasks and prohibits any vertical movement among classes. He supports censorship for some literary material, such as drama and poetry (395c). It seems like Plato is creating an ideology rather than a Utopia. I believe that ideologies are never adequate enough to rule a state, because by accepting ideologies you close all the doors to different ideas which might have better answers to some subjects. Therefore, for a leader pragmatism is an important quality to have in order to rule the country in a successful manner. I must express that the pragmatism Machiavelli is talking about is not selfishness. Machiavellis’ pragmatism is about the greater good (the state). Thus, the leaders actions’ utility measurement criteria should be the benefit it provides to his people in general.

The biggest objection to Machiavellis’ leadership theory is the lack of morality in “Prince”. The lack of morality is so notorious that the word “Machiavellian” is used as a synonym to deception and dishonesty. His main motto for leaders is “if a ruler wishes to reach his highest goals, he will not always find it rational to be moral (Lukes, 563). More clearly “end justifies the means”. Plato, is the opposite of Machiavelli. He held virtues over anything else. The social stratification he created represented three virtues: wisdom for rulers, courage for soldiers and moderation for subjects. Thus, does the value of morality emphasized on Plato make his leadership theory better than Machiavellis’? I have to disagree here. Virtues are definitely important for ordinary people and it is important for the leaders, too. However, it is not essential to possess them for a leader. The essential thing is to have the mindset to change if needed. Here, you can see that Machiavelli holds virtues important, but does not ennoble them like Plato. He knows that politics cannot be executed with solely good virtues, because you cannot expect rival states to have the same merits as yours. Thus, a leader should hold virtues important but must be careful and if needed should be able to act the opposite. In contemporary politics we can observe these qualities in a lot of leaders. For example, during the Independence War Grand National Assembly with orders from Ataturk trialed and executed rebels who were against the assembly. Even though some of them were provocateurs, an undeniable portion of them were civilians who had no guilt other than believing the provocateurs. If the National Assembly had taken this into account and did not execute them, the riots would have spread to the whole country. Another example is Lenin. After an unsuccessful assassination against him he started the Red Terror and killed many of his opposers (Lefebvre, 143). If he did not commit these crimes he probably would have been killed by his opposers and Soviets would have been in an anarchic state. It must be realized that “desperate times need desperate measures” and crisis management is an important ability in leadership. Therefore a naive humanistic approach would not suffice for a leader in ruling his country. He nearly always has to make a trade-off, because there are always two opposing fractions when he is giving decisions. In the Turkish case, if the National Assembly approached the problem in a humanistic way and let the riots spread, the Independence War would be lost and Turkey as we know would not exist. The ones executed would be pro-Revolution.

To conclude, being a leader is different from being an ordinary man, because you have two identities. One is his own identity, the other one is his embodiment to his country. Thus, a leader may have to contradict with his identity from time to time for the benefit of his country. He might have to make decisions that are the total opposite of his beliefs. Therefore, a modern leader cannot be as idealistic as Platos’ leadership theory states. As a result, I think that Machiavelli has a more convincing leadership theory than Platos’ and it reflects to modern times better.

Works Cited

Plato, Republic (Ed) M.G.A Grube, Hackett: London, 1992

Machiavelli, “The Prince”. Selected Political Writings (Ed) David Wootton. Hackett: Indianapolis, 1994

Stalin. Directed by Ivan Passer. Performed by Rubert Duvall. 1992.

J. Lukes, Timothy. “Lionizing Machiavelli”. The American Political Science Review Vol. 95, No. 3. September 2001. Internet url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3118233 (Date accessed 5 March 2012)

[1] Even though Plato wanted the abolishment of private property for the leader class and the communist/socialist states wanted the abolishment of private property in all classes, these states were the closest ones that had a similar view on private property as Platon.

Some Essays on Tarim Mummies #2

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:02:00 +0000

The Tarim Mummies Should Be Announced Globally: Right To Know The Truth

The discovery of the Tarim Mummies shocked the archaeologists, journalists and politicians throughout the world. This discovery meant that the Chinese historians had got their history all wrong (Mallory-Mair 7). The recent findings showed that an European-like community, despite previous history knowledge lived in the heart of the Central Asia. Because, the Chinese had a reputation for being a unique civilization, these discoveries caused discomfort among the Chinese authorities. As a result, they decided to keep this as a secret. This paper will argue that the discovery of Tarim Mummies should be announced globally. To prove this point, four different arguments will be given and argued from different perspectives.

To start with, there is not a certainty about the ethnicity of the mummies found. They are older than the “indigenous people-Uighurs” (Mallory-Mair 7). Thus, they might be the ancestors of Uighurs. It is nearly certain that they are not Chinese, as their physical attributes resemble Europeans much more. However, all of these are just theories and there is a possibility that both of them are wrong. To find a definite answer, detailed and scientific investigations should be held. This can only be achieved via international acknowledgement and international scientific groups. If these investigations are held privately, there is a high chance that the Chinese government will manipulate the reality. As a result, some of the findings can “mysteriously” vanish and damage the credibility of these mummies.

Secondly, if globally announced the Chinese people will have a better understanding of their culture and history. Some old Chinese books described figures of people who were just like Europeans (Ellen O’Brien 3). The Chinese scholars have rejected these claims, but recent evidence has shown the opposite. The Tarim Mummies strengthen the claims of the old Chinese books. As a result, even if the announcement of the discoveries damage the “unique Chinese culture” notion, on universal terms these discoveries would cause prominent changes in both archaic and contemporary world history (O’Brien 2).

Thirdly, if globally announced these mummies with proper advertisement can generate much needed money for the region. This way the economic and social development of the area can be accelerated. Even though this might sound risky for the Chinese authorities, as the economic and social development will be done in the area where the indigenous people are revolting, the process can result in an everlasting peace. Because, economic development will bring money to the region and create a more wealthy Xinjiang. Also, by announcing the discoveries and acknowledging the mummies presence, the Chinese authorities would show their respect for the regions’ history and indigenous people. Thus, the number of people against the Chinese would diminish greatly in size among Uighurs, the international support for the Uighurs freedom movement would become weaker and the Uighurs’ human right violation and inequality claims would not gain mass support in the international media.

Lastly in a more global perspective-everyone has the right to know what is in their environment. Information, that is groundbreaking like this can not be hidden from the public for too long. If the international media finds out the truth before the Chinese announce the discovery globally, the reputation of the Chinese government-which is low enough-thanks to the persecution of Uighurs (Ablet Kamalov 41), would worsen. As a result, China can face sanctions in international scientific groups.

In conclusion, the discoveries in Xinjiang should be announced globally and should be shared with the rest of the world. The announcement, probably, would not be in favour of the Chinese but, secrecy and censorship are not effective ways to control information in the contemporary world. Thus, secrecy and censorship will only delay the inevitable, thus the faster the announcement the better.

Works Cited

Kamalov, Ablet. “Uighur Community in 1990s Central Asia: A Decade of Change.” Diaspora in

Central Asia and Caucasus. Ed. Touraj Atabaki and S. Mehendale. London/New York:

Routledge Curzon Press, 2004. 148-168. Print.

Mallory, J.P. and Victor H. Mair. The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the

Earliest Peoples from the West. London: Thames and Hudson. 7-8, 332. Print.

O’Brien, Ellen. “Mystery of the Mummies.” The Philadelphia Inquirer 12 Apr. 2006. Print.

Some Essays on Tarim Mummies #1

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:49:00 +0000

A Prominent Threat To The Chinese-Uighur Relations: Discovery Of The Tarim Mummies

The discovery of Tarim Mummies shocked the Chinese authorities, because these findings suggested that an European like community had lived in the desert wastes of western China (Mallory-Mair 7). This was prominent, because there is an ongoing conflict between the Chinese and the Uighurs about the Xinjiang province. The Uighurs had been telling folk stories to their young for generations, about their ancestors having Caucasian features and coming from somewhere else(O’Brien 2). These findings strengthened the Uighurs claims to some degree, but created serious problems in the region politics. This paper argues that the discovery of the Tarim Mummies pose a real threat to Chinese-Uighur relations.

For a contemporary nation, their pre-modern history is very important, because the modern nation can find its’ common rights, myths and memories, public culture and historic territory in its’ past (Smith 2). This gives the people a sense of identity and helps them have common interests. In the case of the Uighurs, they are the largest Turkic group indigenous to Xinjiang (Ablet Kamalov 34). Thus, they claim that the mummies found are their ancestors and the mummies’ history is their archaic history. These claims are prominent, because they back up the Uighurs in their freedom movement/fight. These claims repel the Chinese notion of nation which is “all people ever lived and living in China are part of a united Chinese nation” (Kamalov). The Uighurs are arguing that they have been in the Xinjiang area for more than 1250 years and that the Chinese are newcomers, with a mere 250 year past in the region. As a result, the Uighurs demand freedom from China and the Chinese respond with persecution and denial from equal rights.

Another thing to point out is that the discovery of the Tarim Mummies did not just stay regional, it also had impacts on the global arena. These findings actuated the global cooperations, mainly Western originated, to develop interests in the region politics. Prior to this, the Uighur-Chinese relations did not gain the attention it deserved by the global organizations/media. These organizations because of their benefits usually support Uighur claims, which result in a fake power feeling in the Uighur community. They fail to realize that the organizations that support them are there for the benefits, not for the moral issues. They want to weaken the Chinese in Central Asia, benefit from the Uighur-Chinese relations and fill the power gap which the Soviets left after their collapse. Whenever, the Chinese repress the Uighurs and commit human right violations these supporters just turn a blind eye. Because of this ignorant behaviour the Uighurs become more radical and this forces China to take drastic measures, which result in more bloodshed. This process just makes an everlasting peace harder and shows another reason the discoveries pose a real threat to the Uighur-Chinese relations.

There may be more than one way to overcome this threat, but this paper will argue the one that seems the most peaceful. The two parties should meet in common terms. The Uighurs should realize that China is one of the most powerful country in the world and it is highly unlikely that they will give Uighurs freedom. The fact that Xinjiang is the biggest province in China and contains rich oil reserves does not help either. On the other hand, the Chinese should realize that persecuting Uighurs and denying them from equal rights will just provoke the Uighurs and cause larger revolts. This attitude towards the Uighurs’ will not help in the solution of the problem. Also, this kind of behaviour will give a bad reputation to the Chinese in the global arena, which is low enough. Thus, the Chinese should give Uighurs equal rights and acknowledge their history. On the other hand, the Uighurs should stop demanding for freedom and accept Chinese governance, which will be much more beneficial concerning the rapid improvement in Chinese economics.

From the preceding paragraphs, it can be understood that the discoveries pose a threat to the Chinese-Uighur relations, because nothing is more “real” than people dying and being denied from equal rights. However, if the path of negotiation and peace is chosen by both parties all hope is not lost and an everlasting peace can be achieved.

Works Cited

Smith, Anthony. Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995. 1-7. Print.

O’Brien, Ellen. “Mystery of the Mummies.” The Philadelphia Inquirer 12 Apr. 2006. Print.

Mallory, J.P. and Victor H. Mair. The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the

Earliest Peoples from the West. London: Thames and Hudson. 7-8, 332. Print.

Kamalov, Ablet. “Contested Histories of the Ughurs: The Chinese and Uyghur Perspectives. n.d. Print.

Vladimir Ilich Lenin: A Life Obsessed With Revolution

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:45:00 +0000

Leadership Traits of Lenin

Introduction

Since the dawn of man, leaders have been important factors in the success of societies. That is why for centuries philosophers, political scientists and many other scholars have come up with thousands of different theories on leadership. The dictionary definition of leadership is “the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs a group”. This definition shows us the most basic principles of a leader: guidance and directorship. However it does not show the background of how leaders come into existence. That is why people have not been relieved by a sole dictionary definition of leadership throughout time. An inclusive definition of leadership is given by Arthur G. Jagos. He states that leaders develop through a never ending process of self-study, education, training, and experience (Jago, 315). First of all this definition indicates that good leaders are made rather than born. Therefore, with the help of willpower any person has the chance of becoming a successful leader. And secondly, leaders have to go through everlasting development stages. The leadership definition Arthur G. Jago gives is really important for this papers’ subject, in the sense that Lenin fits perfectly to the given qualities. He received high-education and was a law graduate. During his 30 years long career, he wrote hundreds of books and pamphlets, as well as thousands of articles and letters (Haney, 63). He did not stop with the educational process and actively participated in strikes and many other revolutionary activities, which helped him gain the experience he needed for 1917 Revolution. The experience he gained helped him develop rational courage and calculated risk-taking, which is I think rare attributes to see in a leader. With the mentioned developments of his superior leadership qualities he managed to come into prominence in front of his revolutionist colleagues and became the leader of Soviet Russia. This paper will argue that Lenin despite some controversies is one of the most influential and successful leaders human history has ever seen.

His Early Life

To understand why Lenin was a successful leader we have to look closely in his early life. Lenin was born in 10 April 1870 at Simbirsk. He had a relatively happy childhood (Deutscher, 17). In 1874, his father was elevated to the status of Chinovnik, which means that his father became a hereditary noble (Haney, 23). From here, it can be seen that Lenin could have lived a peaceful and prosperous life if he was loyal to the Tsarist government, but he chose the hard road and eventually succeeded. During his high school years he observed the persecutions of Chuvash and Tatars and read the banned books of Pisarev, Dobroliubov and Chernishevski (Lefebvre, 101). However, until his brothers’ unexpected death, he was not a revolutionist. He was just growing consciousness in social problems. In March 1887, his brother was caught and executed by the police for plotting assassination against Tsar Alexander III (Haney, 25).

No one in Lenins’ family knew he was head of a terrorist organization (26). This tragedy affected Lenin so deeply that in various sources he is quoted to say “I will make them pay for this, I swear.” After this incident, he became more ambitious. He finished high school with first place and entered the Kazan Law Faculty in August 1887. In just few months he organized the students to protest against the new “University Regulation” and was arrested. During arrest, he gave a brilliant hint about his determination attribute that was yet to come more in his later life. The police officer asked him “Young man, why are you rebelling? After all, there is a wall in front of you.” He replied with despise “The wall is tottering, if you push it will fall.” (Lefebvre, 102). Here it can be seen that he was determined to overcome the odds and overthrow the Tsar in such a young age. Later, he was sent to exile for a short time to Kokushino and was only allowed to return back to Kazan in October 1888 (103). He was expelled from law faculty and only was accepted to the faculty in 1890 as an external student (Haney, 30). He finished the four years course in 12 months and graduated as the best (30). From this occurrence, it can be understood that he was a hardworking man and was very ambitious. Even if the odds were against him, he managed to read all 4 years readings in 1 year, graduated as the best from the faculty and continued his studies on Marxism. In January 1892, he became a lawyer in Samara and was known as the lawyer of weak, poor and peasants. Ironically, his first case was about a man who was accused of cursing “God, Virgin Mary and Trinity” (Lefebvre 104). However, after two years he decided that being a lawyer only prevented him from pursuing his personal goals, which shows that he had clear goals in life. He realized that he was a lawyer only because his mother wanted him to be so (Haney, 31). Because the poor woman was afraid that his son, Lenin, would take the same road his brother took and would be executed. But, Lenin insisted on and went to St. Petersburg where he started his real “revolutionary” career (31).

From his early life we can make some inferences about his personality such as having conservative personal principles which charted out his later leadership career. He had a serene childhood where he was cared and loved. His father was conscious of the social problems and tried to help the poor. All of his siblings were deeply affected by their father and became revolutionaries in their later lives. Lenin’s peaceful family life also helped him develop his ideas on family and its’ moral values. Before and after the revolution he strictly opposed revolutionists who advocated “free love” (Lefebvre, 484). The advocates metaphorically regarded sexual acts as “drinking water when thirsty” (485). He accused these revolutionists as being bourgeois. He also opposed complete abstain from sexual life. His own idea on family and sexual life was that “sexual acts happened between two people and from there a third is born. Therefore, both of them have a duty towards society (486).” It can be seen that his views on morality and family life formed when he was young. From his ideas on family, it can be understood that he was relatively conservative and was against revolutionists who fell prey to bourgeois impudence and was also against whom supported a life of a priest.

Another important inference from his early life that would shape his later revolutionary life is that his family belonged to the nobility. Therefore, they were economically and socially comfortable and Lenin found time to observe the Tsarist government and its’ political implications over society. He saw the persecutions and crimes of the secret police. He observed how intellectual life was censored. He became conscious of the working classes conditions in Russia. All of these with the mixture of Marx and Engels work he read during university and exile resulted in him having revolutionary tendencies. This part of Lenin’s life has been used by his opposition throughout 20^th century as a mean to “degrade” his worth in the eyes of his supporters, as they claimed that Lenin’s relatively easy life contradicted with his communist ideas. It is true that Lenin did not come from a working class family and lived an easier life than the ones he stood up for. However, this does not prohibit him from being a Marxist as the most important Marxist theoreticians came from well-endowed families. Friedrich Engels was son of an entrepreneur and Marx came from a wealthy family as well. They never became part of the proletariat, but they were the leaders of the proletariat in organizing and revolutionizing them. Their well-endowment helped them have time to theorize the revolution and create concrete paths and goals for the proletariat to follow, because workers, at that time, survived by the skin of their teeth and did not have time to organize a revolution.

A Revolutionist is Born

Lenin had courage, persuasion, determination, ambition and great observing skills that made him a great leader. Starting with 1890 Lenin’s whole life started to revolve around revolution. After his departure to St. Petersburg, Lenin immediately searched ways to be involved in revolutionary activities. As he had done throughout all his life, he started his work there by observing the situation. Lenin never rushed for action. His famous quote “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.” demonstrates this aspect of his perfectly. Before taking a stance he always searched for every bit of information and then when he came to a conclusion, he never backed down. Therefore he started his work in St. Petersburg by visiting the poorest districts of the city in disguise and talking with them about their conditions (Haney, 33). He realized that there were some Marxist groups that worked for the cause, but they did not collaborate with each other and were unaware of the needs of the working class (Lefebvre, 105). One night he went to an illegal meeting of the populists. The populists, unlike Marxism, believed that the only revolutionary group was farmers and peasantry. They tried to raise awareness of these classes, but the peasants and farmers were extremely conservative and idolized the Tsar and did not respond to the populists’ provocations (Haney, 26). Lenin, because he knew of this failure, disagreed with them and believed that only conscious group that could revolutionize is the proletariat. Even though, the proletariat would find their allies in the ranks of the farmers, the farmers would never succeed by their selves and need the loadstar of the proletariat (Lefebvre, 106). Therefore, Lenin believed that socialism had to be implemented from above by a revolutionary group who took its’ power from proletariat and this group would use its’ power to carry out socialist reforms throughout whole country.[1] In 1917, this would be the political structure of the Bolshevik Party. In an illegal meeting he gave a speech on his ideas to the populists and literally converted most of them to Marxism. Going to a meeting that is held by people who are contrary to his believes and then converting them to his own cause with a brilliant speech shows that Lenin was very persuasive and courageous.

The Dark Sides of a Revolutionist

Despite all the positive attributes, Lenin had some deficiencies in his character as well, such as lust for power and intolerance to criticism, which resulted in him having despotic tendencies. A good example occurred in 1903, when there was a major conflict about the political structure of the RSDWP (Russian Social Democrat Workers Party). Lenin believed that to overthrow the Tsarist government a highly centralized party that is only open to professional revolutionists was needed. The opposition wanted the party to be open to anyone who supported its’ program (Haney, 41). In the voting stage, Lenin was behind by five votes, but he set a trap for Martov, the leader of the opposition. He proposed that “The Workers Cause” newspaper, which Lenin participated actively be repealed and “Iskra”, which is the newspaper of the RSDWP, be the sole representative of social democrats (41). Martov thinking his position in the party would be reinforced quickly fell for this trap and voted in favor of Lenin. Members that were supporting Martovs’ cause regarding the political structure of the party felt betrayed and abandoned the congress. Lenin quickly formed his own bloc, the Bolshevik (majority) and named the rest as Menshevik (minority). He radicalized the party and created a highly disciplined skeleton cadre which was objectively essential to overthrow the Tsar. The lust for power and intolerance to criticism haunted Lenin throughout his life. Most of his life, Lenin believed that he was the only one who knew how the revolution can be achieved. Therefore, he was not open to any kind of criticism. The highly centralized party hierarchy he formed represented this perfectly. As a result, Lenin faced heavy criticism from Marxists that lived in the same era as he did, such as Plekhanov and Rosa Luxemburg as well as from future generations (Pipes, 95). It is expected from leaders to be open to different ideas, but Lenin just like most other “ideological” leaders of the past was of dogmatic nature. Even though the party he created had inner democratic tools; the final word was always his. Also, this despotic attitude he posed might have been because of his higher intelligence than his counterparts. His high intelligence might have deluded him to think that others were not suitable for leadership and he was superior to them in terms of leading. These causes mentioned might be the answer to his despotic tendencies, but nonetheless, he managed to create a party that became one of the worlds’ biggest political organization after the 1917 Revolution. Therefore, the end justified the means.

Dark Times of a Revolutionist

The year 1905 was very important in Lenin’s life and it showed that he was determined for his goals. All around Russia people rebelled against the Tsar for various reasons and Lenin fought hard to conduct them into the revolution idea, but the rebellions were gradually suppressed by the government. Even though a constitutional monarchy was formed the revolutionists failed to create a socialist state and most of them became depressed and abandoned their revolutionary ideas. They sought refuge in religion and many other subjects that were totally opposite of their prior thoughts (Lefebvre, 119). However, Lenin was not one of them and he worked even harder for his goal. He heavily criticized his colleagues that abandoned their revolutionary thoughts and insisted that they had learnt valuable lessons for future revolutions. Eventually, the history proved Lenin right and after 1917 Revolution when asked about his thoughts on 1905 Revolution he said “Without 1905 Revolution, we could not have succeeded the 1917 Revolution.”(120). Because of fear of persecution he left Russia in 1907 and until 1917 did not come back to his mother country. He continued directing the revolutionary activities in Russia even though he was in Europe. He spent most of his time reading books, directing the Bolshevik Party and discussing politics with other European revolutionists. Even though he was in exile he never stopped fighting for his cause which also shows he had the determination attribute.

The Achievement of His Life Time Goal: Establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

After the successful 1917 Revolution Lenin got the opportunity to put his ideas into work and show the world how he would lead his country. He was mainly successful in dealing with realism and he tried to render the revolutions sustainable. In February 1917, the Tsar was overthrown and a Provisional Assembly was formed. Most Bolsheviks were in exile during the rebels and Lenin with his cadre returned to the country. However, the Provisional Assembly was not socialist in nature and Lenin declared his April Thesis (134). He claimed that the Assembly is bourgeois and the real government must be formed by Soviets.[2] The Bolsheviks armed the workers and created the Red Army. They overthrew the weak Provisional Assembly and declared the proletariat dictatorship.[3] But, the struggle had just started for Lenin and Bolsheviks. They had to struggle with political opposition which composed of nearly all political fractions ranging from die-hard tsarists to moderate socialists (Haney, 87). Also, the war with Germany was underway and they had to determine the question of withdrawal from war. Moreover, the requirements of a socialist state were to be applied. Very important decisions such as abolishment of land property and nationalization of banking institutes had to be made in weeks’ time (87).

The uprisings against the Bolsheviks gathered speed in 1918 summer and reached climax point in 30 August 1918 with an unsuccessful assassination against Lenin. Shortly after the assassination attempt a massive campaign of repression towards political opposition took place, called Red Terror.[4] This part of Russian history and Lenins’ life has been debated by scholars for nearly a century. In the end of the terror nearly 280,000 people were killed (95). Some scholars have argued that the Red Terror was a forced measurement from working class against the enemies.[5] They back up their claim with the fact that only in Finland nearly 100,000 people were killed because of White Terror in July 1917 (95). The opposite party argues that because Bolsheviks lacked popular support, they had to resort to violence to secure their spot. Also, they point out that Marxism regards people as objects or consumables for the establishment of a communist state.[6] Both of these sides possess valid points; it is true that when it comes down to revolution, Marxism treats people as consumables. On the other hand, Bolsheviks did not directly resort to violence. They were practically forced to defend the revolution. If they did not resort to violence, the Bolsheviks would have been the ones getting killed and the debate would have been about whether White Terror was justifiable or not. Therefore, the pro-Red Terror or anti-Red Terror scholars’ take their arguments from ideological basis rather than humanitarian causes. As a result, it would not be accurate to come to a final conclusion in this essay about a topic that has been debated for nearly a century.

Conclusion

The world has seen many great leaders that transformed their countries for good. But, Lenin was the first one to revolutionize a country with a scientific ideological basis (good or bad), leaders before him either reformed their country or revolutionized without a concrete ideology. He established the first socialist regime in worlds’ history.[7] Even though his successors were not as successful as him in carrying his legacy, the Soviets became one of the worlds’ biggest and strongest country. His revolution influenced the world immensely. The poor, weak and exploited understood that they were not bond to be under the yoke of their masters. So, in the 20^th century, throughout the world people rebelled against their masters and the masters came under the yoke of the people. Because of his huge influence over the world he has been heavily criticized and praised as well. These both point of views have valid points. However, I believe that despite some deficiencies in his character, he was a leader that a nation can raise only once a century.

Works Cited

Deutscher, Isaac. Lenin’s Childhood. Michigan. Oxford University Press, 1970.

Hands, Gill (Trans. Melis İnan). Marx-Kilit Fikirler. İstanbul: Optimist Yayınları, 2011.

Haney, John. VLADIMIR ILICH LENIN. New York-Philadelphia: Chealsea House Publishers, 1988.

Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28(3), 315-336.

Pipes, Richard. The Unknown Lenin: From Secret Archive. London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.

Tumarkin, Nina. LENIN LIVES! The Lenin Cult in Soviet Russia. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press, 1983.

[1] An important Marxist Pyotr Tkachevs’ ideas influenced Lenin in creating this system.

[2]Soviets are councils that are formed by workers, soldiers and farmers where they choose their own representitives. During 1917, they played a large role in running the country. However, when Bolsheviks solidified their position in 1922, the Bolsheviks took the leading role and soviets relegated to secondary status.

[3] Dictatorship of proletariat is the inevitable non-democratic state that is formed after the Revolution. After a classless society is achieved the dictatorship of proletariat will be abolished.

[4] Red Terror(led by Bolsheviks), White Terror (led by Anti-Bolshevik)

[5] L.S Gaponenko and A.S. Velidov are some of these historians.

[6] "There is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new —revolutionary terror." A quote of Karl Marx

[7] Not taking account the Paris Commune which took place between March 1871 and May 1871 and is regarded as the first state establishment formed by the working class.

REPUBLIC: SUMMARY of BOOK 4

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:16:00 +0000

Here, I first summarize Book 4 of Republic and then argue whether human justice and justice of the city are two parallel concepts.

Adeimantus points out the fact that even though the guardians own the city, they cannot derive anything good from it, because it is forbidden for the guardians to own any kind of private wealth. Socrates’ responds to this objection by stating that the main goal of the city is not to make only a group of people outstandingly happy, the goal is to make everyone happy. If they give the guardians that kind of happiness, the guardians would not be guardians anymore. Therefore the guardians and leaders need to be persuaded to not to desire any wealth. Socrates also claims that because poverty and richness makes a craftsman and his products worse, the city needs to be protected from them. Adeimantus objects to this by stating that a city that has no wealth cannot protect itself from its’ enemies. Socrates reminds him that the guardians of their city will be the best in the world because of their education and therefore will defeat their enemies easily. Also, he points out that because the guardians cannot possess any kind of wealth, the loot of the war would be left to their allies and therefore the city would have a lot of allies.

Socrates and Plato discussing

Socrates limits the boundaries of the city, because if the city gets too big the guardians would not be able to control it. The guardians also need to protect their education well, because with good education the offsprings of the city would be better than their predecessors. If the good education is preserved than there would be no need for legislation, because it would be pointless to dictate something to people who are good, they’ll know what is good for them. The same is true for a wretched city as well. If the people of the city are wretched, it would be pointless to legislate as people would just find ways to avoid the laws.

Socrates declares the city complete and starts to define the four virtues the city possesses which are wisdom, courage, moderation and justice. The first virtue Socrates finds in the city is wisdom. The city is wise not because the carpenters’ are doing their job well, but because the rulers are wise. The courageous part of the city is its’ auxiliary guardians, because they are the ones who will protect the city from the enemies. Moderation is present in everyone. The agreement between who will rule and who will be ruled is called moderation. When the leaders, who are rational, rule over others the state is harmonious.

Finally we come to the last virtue which is justice. Just like moderation, justice is spread out throughout the city. Justice according to Socrates is everyone doing what they are best at and not meddling with others work. This meddling won’t cause much harm to the city if the exchange is between two people in the same class. However, an exchange between classes would be the worst thing that can happen to a city. So, the producers would continue performing their crafts, the soldiers would protect the city from the enemies and the leaders would rule over the city.

According to Socrates, this division of classes in the state is present in humans as well. However, they are not called classes, but parts of the soul. To prove that human justice is similar to the justice of the city, he states that just like the three classes in the city there are three parts of the soul. These are the rational part, spirited part and appetitive part. The rational part seeks for the truth. The appetitive part is composed of desires such as sex, eating, money. The spirited part is composed of our emotions, such as anger, honor etc. These three parts correspond to the three classes in the city. The rational part is present in the guardians, the spirited part is most prominent in the auxiliary guardians and the appetitive part is most prominent in the producers.

For a person to be just these three parts should be in harmony. The rational part has to rule the spirited and appetitive part. The spirited part, with proper education from birth, can help the rational part in controlling the appetitive part. However, if a person cannot tame his spirited part, the spirited part would help the appetitive part in controlling the rational part. If the appetitive part rules the other parts than that person would be the slave of his appetites.

Socrates finishes by stating that a man is just in the same way as a city and this justice is every part doing what they are best at. With proper education the rational and spirited part would rule the appetitive part, which is the biggest part. A just person would not let any part of him to meddle with the other parts. If this harmony is destroyed than that person becomes unjust. Socrates continuous his inquiry by looking into what injustice is. This inquiry continues in the proceeding books.

PARALLEL CONCEPTS: HUMAN JUSTICE and JUSTICE of the CITY

The city is composed of individuals and is not something independent. The city needs humans to exist and therefore without people it would be pointless to talk about it. As a result in order to find the human justice, Socrates started his inquiry by examining how a just city would be, which he rightly did so. Just like Socrates claims, I think that human justice and justice of the city are two parallel concepts.

Since humans started living as communities, there always have been social classes. This is a part of the human nature, because starting with childhood, people live in different environments. Also people have inherent inequalities as well; for example some people are better endowed from birth than others. There is no point in denying that. Even though some philosophers have argued for a classless society, this is more of a utopia then reality. Because denying the hierarchical structure of the society is illogical, the best thing that can be done is amending it to its best. By formulating three classes for the society Socrates wants to achieve the best system for an ideal city. According to him the well-endowed from birth, when equipped with a good education, will be successful leaders (Plato, 104). If individuals are investigated, it is not too difficult to find out which part of a person is/should be praised the most. Common sense leads us to the rational part of the soul. Therefore, it is obvious that the leaders should possess the most praised part. If incompetent people are the leaders, namely people who are ruled by their spirited or appetitive part, the city would perish. Because, both the spirited and appetitive part of the soul are inclined to making mistakes and forming obsessions. A person controlled by his appetite would do any harm to anyone to satisfy his needs. For example, a person who has cravings for chocolate might kill someone even though it is irrational. A person controlled by his spirited part would do bad things with good intentions. For instance, despite being outnumbered a rash person would charge into the enemy, kill numerous enemy soldiers and die in the process. However, a rational person would have waited for the reinforcements to arrive and then strike the enemy. It is easy to see that without the rational part both people and the city would be unjust. The examples demonstrated how the people would perish. So what about the city? In the introduction, I stated that the city is composed of individuals and without individuals there is no point in talking about a city. In other words, it is the qualities of the human beings that define the city. Therefore, if the citizens are unjust, the city automatically becomes unjust. No other entity in the city can make a city just. Good buildings or obedient dogs do not make a city just. As a result justice of the city and human justice are two parallel concepts.

State-Building Nationalism: Selling a Dream

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:10:00 +0000

This is what happens when people gullibly follow
nationalist sentiments.

There have been numerous definitions given for the nationalism phenomena. Most of these definitions give just a glimpse of nationalism. Few of these definitions are adequate enough to provide the broader picture. The sentiment that the emerging nation relies upon is best described by Ernest Gellner. He states that nationalism is a primarily a political principle, which requires the political and the national unit being harmonious (1). The success of nationalism relies on both of them.

As referred to in the definition given by Gellner, the emerging nation will have to be congruent concerning political and natural unit. This naturally brings one to state-building nationalism, which is mentioned by Hechter (141). This type of nationalism has been around since the 16^th century but it was at its’ peak between the mid 19^thand early 20^thcenturies. The fact that state-building nationalism is older than most of the typologies in nationalism studies does not mean it is out of fashion. An undeniable number of emerging countries used and is still using this technique to create a homogenous and congruent nation, such in the case, of Turkey, Estonia, Kazakhstan and many more. The reason many states are using this specific type is not a coincidence. This is because the term is beneficial for the elite in reshaping the nation, which will be mentioned later in this paper.

The “nation” term has been around since ancient times. The anecdote of Noah prophet says that his sons (Mizraim, Cush, Put, Canaan) that survived the flood, emigrated to the different parts of the globe and formed the prototypes of the contemporary nations (Freemaninstitute). Even though these prototypes might be far from the nations known today, they are still important as this shows that the nations did not suddenly form in the modern era. However, one should not assert that the nations are perennial and everlasting, nor they are just a production of industrialization and will pass away. They are a mixture of them. In The Warvick Debates, Anthony Smith states that modern political nationalism cannot be understood without reference to pre-modern ethnic identities and communities (4). The conflicts in Balkans is a perfect example for this argument. Serb political analyst Aleksa Djilas states that “The nationalist struggle between Yugoslavia’s constituent groups were not inventions and they based on past, but the war between them was a creation of the manipulative elite (1). One can use pre-modern eras symbols to provoke nationalist feelings in the modern world. This further proves that there is a close link between the modern and pre-modern epochs.

As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, nations did not solely emerge because of industrialization and the French Revolution. They are not primordial, either. So how did they form? To understand this phenomena, one must go back to ancient times when multi-national empires ruled the world. Materializing this abstract subject will make things easier. Hence, the Ottoman Empire, on behalf of all pre-modern empires, will be a good example. Even though the Turks were the founders of this empire and the royal family was from Turkish descent, at the empires’ prime time, the Turks constituted only a small fraction. The governing class was mainly of Slavic ethnicity who converted to Islam via a unique system called devshirme. The empire reached its’ peak in the early 17^th century and started to dissolve like many other empires in the 19^thcentury. Thus, the reason why they dissolved is pretty clear. The idea of freedom, equality and, more importantly, nationalism, which was spread by the French Revolution, were the causes of this dissolution. This was where the elites took control. The nationalism idea shattered most of the empires and the elites of nations under empires control dealt the final blow. To secede from empires, the elite had to create a nation image for their nation to believe in and, if needed, to die for. They used the symbols, accepted practices and myths of their own nations and other similar nations. They merged these fragments, remoulded them and presented it as brand new. To present their finished work, they used print-capitalism, because through print-capitalism the elites had the opportunity to strengthen vernacular languages and in conclusion their own power. James G.Kellas, on behalf of Benedict Anderson’s work, states that, “Printing standardises languages, and aids the development of capitalism and the centralised state.” (57). However, it should not be interpreted that this is something unwanted, because without the elites the nationalist movements would have been temporary and would not have a specific goal to reach.

In conclusion, to create a new nation/nationalism in the contemporary world, one must be imaginative because to unite people, one must sell a dream where their nation is everlasting and will prevail through time. This way the modern people who are feeling obsolete in the mass crowds can have an ideal to believe in so a commonality would be formed between them. Otherwise, these masses would have been distinct. This paper tries to claim that if given chance, the best way to create a nation/nationalism is to use state-building nationalism with the aid of the elites’ manipulative power.

Works Cited

Anthony, Oberschall. Ordinary People in the Balkan Wars: Ethnic Nationalism, Opportunism, Fear, Conformity and Confusion Panel, 25 Apr. 2009, U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983. 1-7. Print.

Hechter, Michael. “Types of Nationalism.” The Nationalism Project. N.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

Kellas, James. The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity. 2nd ed. New: York: St Martin’s Press,1998. 1-9, 43-63. Print.

Smith, Anthony. Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995. 1-7. Print.

“Table of Nations.” Freemaninstitute. Web. 25 Oct. 2011

Gameknot-correspondence chess

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:45:00 +0000

If you did not know (of course you don't :)), I am an avid chess fan and have been playing chess online for nearly 10 years. Even though I had some breaks, because of real life issues, Gameknot has been my #1 correspondence chess playing site. For those who don't know what correspondence chess is, it is basically playing with someone far away via e-mail, homing pigeon (!), letter or internet server. As you can easily guess, Gameknot is based on an internet server. You can play several games concurrently and have couple of days for your each move. So, it is great for laid back people who like to take their time while playing chess as time isn't a problem in correspondence chess. Ample time allows you to go on with your daily life while still enjoying playing chess. If you are interested in chess I would suggest you to give it a try.

Click here

"When you see a good move, look for a better one." Emanuel Lasker (2nd World Chess Champion)

Gadfly

State and the Revolution - Vladimir Lenin

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:43:00 +0000

I thought a lot about choosing a book to read last weekend, but failed miserably in choosing one. This was mainly because I really didn't want to read some random novel and didn't have any other book idea. However, I then remembered the list I made about Marxist books I might want to read in the near future and "State and the Revolution" seemed like a good choice among them. I found a copy in my college library which was a 1935(!) edition of the book. I was astonished by the success of the translation as the language of the book was completely understandable.

Lenin in disguise

So, I knew some stuff about Marxism before but never really read a book written by Marx/Engels or Lenin. The book (or pamphlet) was written by Lenin in 1917 to combat right opportunism (bourgeoise tendencies) and anarchist distortions of Marxism. He starts with a rather pretentious claim stating "During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes relentlessly persecute them and meet their teachings with the most savage hostility, the most furious hatred and the most ruthless campaign of lies and slanders. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to surround their names with a certain halo for the consolation of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping them". These sentences stroke me as not just for revolutionaries but for most outcast people these words are true-being persecuted for your whole life and then posthumously being declared a saint. After this robust opening statements, he starts combating his various contemporary political adversaries during early 20th century. Most of the discussions are quite out-dated, however they still include some valuable knowledge about Marxist thought. One that I found interesting was about the intrinsic structure of the state. According to him, the state is the product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. So, we can deduct that if there are no class antagonisms, than there won't be an entity called state. He continuous logically by stating that the state is the instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed class. that state is He then labels the military and bureaucracy as the tools used by bourgeois(the minority) to help them suppress the working class(the majority). It is interesting to point out that he doesn't see the state as something to be revered, but rather a mere instrument. This I believe is one of the main points where Marxism is completely opposite to Hegelian philosophy.

Later parts of the book is mainly composed of discussions concerning the feasibility of a stateless society and thus exceeds my aim in writing this post. An interested person can further investigate on those subjects as well. Even though Marxism is long dead practically and barely surviving theoretically, I believe one can still find some information useful for understanding the world (which is true for most philosophies). So, if you have some spare time and like reading political books "State and Revolution" might be a good book to spice up your knowledge about the world.

"A standing army and police are the chief instruments of state power." Lenin

Rantingadfly