Kwame Nkrumah

Kwame Nkrumah (September 21, 1909- April 27 1972) was a Ghanaian nationalist leader, who during the 1940’s and 1950’s led Ghana to independence from the British. He became the first African Prime Minister in the Commonwealth (1951) and Ghana’s first President after decolonization (1957), and carried with him his vision for a new Africa.

After World War II, Britain began to decline in its power and influence, while simultaneously, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was gaining influence and becoming a world superpower. This change of balance within the world would influence the political environment of Ghana greatly, and inspire Nkrumah and the nationalist movement for Ghanaian independence and his vision of a new, united, and powerful Africa. The British colonists often took advantage of the Ghanaian people; as Britain became more democratic, the same rights were not given to the Ghanaian people. In 1945, the British stole foreign exchange from cocoa farmers in order to strengthen the British Pound. However by doing so, Ghanaians were unable to invest in what they felt was necessary, and distorted investment priorities. British colonialism and its stronghold on the people of Ghana inspired Nkrumah and the nationalist movement. In addition to this, the Russian Revolution and the USSR also influenced Nkrumah and his views, as not only was the USSR nationally diverse, but was a “relatively backwards country” transformed into a “giant industrial power” (Tunteng 234). Nkrumah and the nationalist movement in Ghana was a result of the political climate during the start of the Cold War era, and the ideas and changes made under Nkrumah would influence the future of Ghana and Africa.

Nkrumah sought to improve the lives of Ghanaians, which he did by expanding and improving infrastructure across the state. This was a necessary action by Nkrumah, as much of the infrastructure in Ghana, especially the poor regions to the north, was extremely lacking. By making improvements to education, health care, transport, and energy, Nkrumah “started to create the economic infrastructure that Ghana needed if it were to become an efficient exporter of primary goods” (Ray 13). The changes of infrastructure were apparent within the nation, especially improvements to health care, which increased the life expectancy “from 40 years in 1960 to 55.2 in 1984” (Ray 4).  As beneficial as these changes were to Ghanaian society, the origins of these changes held dangerous consequences.

Much of Ghana’s development under Nkrumah was due to a need to “catch up” with the West, as Ghana had, like other colonial nations, been “deprived” of the “resources to pursue Western Style economic development” (Mishra 74). Nkrumah’s actions were a result of his mimetic desire to obtain the wealth and prosperity for Ghana like those in the west, such as the United States. However, British interference and colonialism had drained Ghana of many of its resources, making it difficult for Ghana to integrate into the world market. The economy of Ghana was unable to keep up with the costs of all the improvement to infrastructure, and Nkrumah sought loans from Western nations in order to try and remedy their economic problems. Mimetic desire led in part to Nkrumah’s fall, but despite this he continued to inspire and many Ghanaians and Africans.

Nkrumah introduced many young Ghanaians to socialist ideology, which would influence later revolutions such as the December 31^st Revolution in 1981. This same socialist ideology would spread throughout Africa, influencing other colonies to seek independence for themselves. Nkrumah’s ideologies manifest through the belief which has been coined Nkrumaism: “Every vestige of colonialism must be wiped away from every corner of Africa. That is the policy for Africa” (James 162). Furthermore, Nkrumah wanted the people of Ghana to undergo “a political and mental revolution at the same time,” changing not only the political institutions of Ghana, but also changing the minds and ideologies of the Ghanaian people (Tunteng 233). Nkrumah’s lasting impact on Ghana through the way that “he created the political symbols and political psychology of patriotism and sovereignty in Ghana against which all others are still measured, and which to the left are still the touchstone of truth” (Ray 13). Nkrumah changed African ideology and spearheaded the African independence movement.

Lor Richardson

Works Cited

James, C. L. R. Nkrumah and the Ghana Revolution. Allison & Busby, 1982.

Mishra, Pankaj. Age of Anger: a history of the present. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2017.

Ray, Donald. Ghana: Politics, Economics, and Society. Francis Pinter, 1986.

Tunteng, P. “Kwame Nkrumah and the African Revolution.” Civilisations, vol. 23/24, no. 3/4, 1973/1974, pp. 233-247., doi: 130.113.69.47.

Other Relevant Readings

Davidson, Basil. Black Star: a view of the life and times of Kwame Nkrumah. Westview Press, 1989.

Howe, Russell Warren. “Did Nkrumah Favour Pan-Africanism?” Transition, no. 27, 1966, pp. 13–15., doi:10.2307/2934195.

Gupta, Anirudh. “Kwame Nkrumah: A Reassessment.” International Study, vol. 12, no. 2, January 1973, pp. 207-221. doi:10.1177/002088177301200203.

Smertin, Yuri. Kwame Nkrumah. International Publishers, 1987.

Alexander Kerensky

1881-1970

Alexander Kerensky was a remarkable and heroic liberal idealist who played an important role in the Russian Revolution but was ultimately swallowed up in an Age of Anger and lost his battle to establish liberalism in Russia (Lipatova 267). Educated at the University of St Petersburg as a student of history and classical languages and then as a lawyer, Kerensky started his legal career defending activists who had been charged with political crimes during the first Revolution of 1905 (Darby 48).  Throughout his political career he stood for reform and human rights and was one of the leading representatives in the Russian Parliament (“The Duma”) (Rendle 929).  Kerensky believed that with increasing industrialization and modernization of Russia in the 19^th century the political system needed to be modernized.  Kerensky believed that only democratic renewal and freedom would move Russia into the modern age (Darby 52).  He also strongly believed that the system of autocracy after 300 years of the rule of Romanov Tsars was outdated and that a constitutional democracy as existed in England was a far better system. Kerensky was a leading spokesman for reform (Darby 52).  He was a nationalist and after Russia joined the Great War in 1914 he maintained that Russia’s future was to defend itself against Germany and Austria-Hungary and to align itself with more democratic countries such as England and France (Lipatova 274).  He opposed corruption in the system under the Tsarist system and he protested when the Czar suspended sittings of the Duma.  After three years of an exhausting and losing War with 7,000,000 Russian casualties, there were extreme food shortages and civil unrest in St Petersburg, which led to Tsar Nicholas II’s loss of civil control and his abdication (Rappaport 20).  A provisional government was appointed with representatives from the Duma, the only existing institution which had not been discredited by the Tsarist regime (Rappaport 20). Alexander Kerensky who was seen as a star in the Duma was appointed Minister of Justice.  Two months later following a vote in the Duma to continue to support the war, Kerensky became Minister of War and in July Kerensky became Prime Minister at the young age of 36.  Kerensky’s success at the time of the February Revolution and for the eight months which followed was attributable to the fact that Russia was like “a volcano” (Rappaport 39).  In this system Kerensky was seen as “a man of action” and “a man who seemed bound to become the government’s main spring” (Rappaport 151).  He made concessions to the Soviets and the Bolsheviks to try to get their support, delivered amnesty to political prisoners, abolished the death penalty and recognized freedom of speech, press, assembly and strikes (Rappaport 139).  The Bolsheviks were initially prepared to bide its time to gather more strength at least until Lenin returned to St Petersburg from political exile. Ironically, it was Kerensky’s amnesty that allowed Lenin to return to Russia.  The high point of Kerensky’s support and power came in July 1917 when an attempted rebellion by the Bolsheviks failed. From that high point to October, Kerensky and his provisional government were unable to keep the lid on the volcano.  Perhaps his biggest mistake was that he became closely too identified with War and supported an unsuccessful offensive in July called “The Kerensky Offensive” (Rendle 929).  His government was sabotaged by the army which became restless and under General Kornilov attempted a coup to gain more power.  This failed coup only highlighted Kerensky’s weakness. There was a cholera epidemic in St Petersburg, continued food shortages and protests, unrest and strikes (Rendle 929). Kerensky personally was overwhelmed by all the problems facing the country and lost the common touch and support of the people (Rappaport 229).  Finally in October 1917 the Bolsheviks who had been quietly reorganizing in the background under Lenin’s leadership appealed to the people with the promises of “Peace, Land and Bread” and “All power to the Soviets” which was too powerful for the Kerensky government to overcome (Rappaport 229).  The Kerensky government collapsed being unable to exercise control and was replaced ironically by an oppressive communist dictatorship which murdered anyone threatening its power including the Tsar and his family and any other opposition.  Kerensky fled the country to live in the United States where he died in 1970 (Darby 51).  Kerensky, like Gorbachev in the 1980s, was an advocate of progress, reform and liberalism.  Like Gorbachev, Kerensky was unable to marshall liberalism to defeat counter-revolution and dictatorship.  Kerensky was an important character in the Russian Revolution and he championed change and hope.  Although he was a rising star during times of anger, he and his quest for liberalism ultimately flamed out within an all too brief eight month experiment in power.

Liam O’Brien

 

Works Cited

Darby, Graham. “KERENSKY in HINDSIGHT: Alexander Kerensky, the Last Russian Premier Before the Bolsheviks Took Power, Decided to Continue the War with Germany. He and His Country Would Pay the Price.” History Today, vol. 67, no. 7, July 2017, pp. 48-53. EBSCOhost,libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire ct=true&db=ahl&AN=123878502&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Lipatova, Nadezhda V. “On the Verge of the Collapse of Empire: Images of Alexander Kerensky and Mikhail Gorbachev.” Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 65, no. 2, Mar. 2013, pp. 264-289. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/09668136.2012.759715.

Rappaport, Helen. Caught In The Revolution: Petrograd, Russia, 1917-A World On The Edge. New York: St. Matin’s Press, 2017.

Rendle, Matthew. “The Officer Corps, Professionalism, and Democracy in the Russian Revolution.” Historical Journal, vol. 51, no. 4, Dec. 2008, pp. 921-942. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1017/S0018246X08007139.

Sergei Gennadiyevich Nechaev

September 20^th, 1847- November 21^st, 1882

Sergei Nechaev: nihilist, revolutionary, anarchist and precursor to the Russian Revolution of 1917. Growing up in Russia Nechaev became deeply imbued with ideals of militant revolution. As a revolutionary Nechaev is considered “A fantasist of revolution, a tireless conspirator, and a master manipulator.” It was his view that any means were justified if they served the revolutionary end. As a staunch Nihilist Nechaev felt a disenchantment with the world that he found himself in, through this vision of the world he worked to establish a revolutionary group in Russia under the title The People’s Retribution or Society of the Axe. In this association, Nechaev and his followers practiced the belief of Catechism or the unquestioning loyalty to the leader. His belief in Catechism made his power absolute, thereby forging Nechaev into an extremely dangerous radical. Having written the “Catechism of a Revolutionary” with Bakunin’s help, though there is debate as to which of the two men wrote the text Nechaev began practicing his own version of revolutionary terrorism. The text itself was considered one of the most notorious and extreme justifications for terrorism ever written. Nechaev and Bakunin released pamphlets that fell in “favour of destruction, for violence ‘now’ and ‘immediately’” making them some of the most prolific spreaders of destruction. These violent tendencies were not only practiced against the outside world as a means of revolution. Steeped in his own values of Catechism Nechaev refused to be party to insurrection or questioning within his own movement. When I.I. Ivanov, a fellow revolutionary, began to question both Nechaev’s authority and his method’s Nechaev was merciless in his response. With the help of other members of the People’s Retribution Nechaev “beat, strangled, and shot [Ivanov]” then dumped his body in a frozen pond. When the murder was discovered 67 members of Nechaev’s conspirators were brought to trial while he fled to Switzerland. He would later be arrested by the Swiss police and extradited back to Russia to stand trial for his crimes. Quickly convicted for his part in this horrific crime Nechaev was sentenced to 20 years hard labour, however, the tsar of Russia considered Nechaev so dangerous that he secretly sentenced him to solitary confinement for the rest of his life. He died in the dungeons of Peter-Paul fortress.

Nechaev is also an important figure because of the relationships he fostered among other influential Russian revolutionaries. The first being Mikhail Bakunin. As previously stated these two men wrote “Catechism of a Revolutionary” but they did much more. In a correspondence written by Bakunin to Nechaev, he discusses the importance of the “collective dictatorship of the secret organization.” They believed that power should reside in the hands of the few not the many, that leadership should be through dictatorship and the ruler’s methods and authority should be unquestionable. The two revolutionaries played off each other’s desire for violent and extremist revolution with their values fixated on the power of Catechism. In contrast, Fyodor Dostoyevsky held a very different view of the militant radical revolutionary. Dostoyevsky called Nechaev a “rebel, his ideal is insurrection and destruction” he saw Nechaev as a force of deceit and destruction, someone who did not hold at his core the desire to properly help the revolution. To reinforce his dislike of Nechaev, Dostoyevsky used him as a character model for two of his works Demons and The Possessed. In both texts, the character associated with Nechaev is deceitful, cruel, uncaring of his other revolutionaries and demands unwavering loyalty. For example, in The Possessed the character based on Nechaev was Pyotr Verhovensky. Dostoyevsky explains how members were “fanatically devoted to… Pyotr” and yet he “he treated them in general with great sternness and even rather casually.” Dostoyevsky cherished the brave revolutionaries that argued alongside him and disparaged Nechaev for his perceived delusions of grandeur. In the eyes of Dostoyevsky Nechaev was a radical that deserved no place among the good, honest, hardworking revolutionaries that actively supported his vision of the Russian Revolution. Sergei Nechaev was an extremist of the highest caliber. He spread ideas of terrorism in the support of revolution and killed those that called into question his authority or his ideas. He was a hallmark character of the future Russian Revolution and while dangerous was extremely effective in the dissemination of his ideology.

Graeme Moore

Bibliography

Anemone, Anthony. Just Assassins: The Culture Of Terrorism In Russia. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 2010.

Bakunin, Mikhail. A letter to Nechayev. Locarno, Encounter, 1972.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Possessed. Global Grey, 2014.

Pomper, Philip. “BAKUNIN, NECHAEV, AND THE “CATECHISM OF A REVOLUTIONARY”: THE CASE FOR JOINT AUTHORSHIP.” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 10, no. 4 (Winter1976 1976): 535-551. Historical Abstracts, EBSCOhost (accessed November 9, 2017).

Verhoeven, Claudia. “Time of Terror, Terror of Time On the Impatience of Russian Revolutionary Terrorism (Early 1860s – Early 1880s).” Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas, Neue Folge, 58, no. 2 (2010): 254-73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41052430.

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

28 May 1883 – 26 February 1966

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar born in Bhagur, British India, was an Indian poet, lawyer, politician, writer and pro-independence activist. Savarkar is considered to be the intellectual founder of Hindu Nationalism. He is the author of “Hindutva” (1923), a book which explains what it means to be a Hindu. “Hindutva” is considered to be one of the most influential works that shaped Hindu Nationalism, it has influenced many nationalists and revolutionaries in India. He was described as an extremist, revolutionary, anarchist, terrorist and a militant nationalist and has greatly influenced these groups in India and other places. His early writings had a wide audience of anarchists, nationalists, anti-imperialists, revolutionaries, socialists, Nazis and Fascists alike. He was also an atheist, but none the less identified as an Hindu and was a known spiritual and a believer in mysticism.

Savarkar was a revolutionary figure who played a major role in framing Indian national identity as a Hindu national identity. He was involved in liberation movements since the age of sixteen. He was involved in Mitra Mela, a Hindu movement in Pune and Nasik. He founded the secret anti-colonial society Abhinav Bharat. His focus on writing the history of revolutionaries has inspired many young Indian men to become revolutionaries themselves. His work, “The Indian War of Independence of 1857” (1909), glorified the revolutionaries, even Muslims, in an attempt to recruit more people to his cause. This book was later banned by the British Government, but it was still published secretly.

Savarkar was involved in the assassinations of two British Colonial Officials and he was also responsible for circulating bomb-making instructions among his colleagues, which he learned from a revolutionary that was involved in the Russian revolution of 1905. From these events, it is evident that Savarkar was central for promoting political violence against colonial oppressors and in popularizing the concept of an Indian national identity based on a Hindu platform.

His concept of national identity was to create a nation of India that included Hindu’s, Jain’s, Buddhist’s and Sikh’s, while excluding the Christians (British and converts) and Muslims. Later on he became the president of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, A Hindu chauvinist party, which was highly anti-Muslim. Many sources claim that he transformed from a revolutionary that was willing to work with Muslims to a Hindu Nationalist who was an anti-Muslim, during his imprisonment by the British.

He is alleged to have played a central role of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, for the person that assassinated Gandhi was Nathuram Godse, a member of Hindu Mahasabha and an editor of a daily newspaper, which Savarkar had invested in. Due to this, he was under suspicion and after the assassination of Gandhi, he was put on a trial, but he was not found guilty. After this, he was forced to agree to not get involved with politics, and he was mostly forgotten until 1980s, where his ideology started to have a greater impact on politics. Now, he is being remembered by many Hindu nationalists as an important figure and he was even paid tribute by the Indian Prime minister.

Savarkar died in 26 February 1966 at the age of 82, he stopped eating for he believed that his mission in life was over and decided to die. Savarkar is seen as a key figure in the anti-colonial movement in India and has greatly influenced anti-colonial and anti-imperialist sentiments among the Indian population. Even though he was in jail for 10 years, he did not give up on his dream of an independent India and consistently worked towards his goal. He was at odds with Gandhi, for he believed that India can only be independent through a violent revolution and actively encouraged and created political violence. His idea of Hindutva has influenced many Indians and is still used in Indian politics today. In conclusion Savarkar was known for his idea of Hindutva, Hindu nationalism and the Indian independence movement.

Jaan Parekh

 

Works Cited

1. Pincince, John. “On the verge of Hindutva: V.D. Savarkar, revolutionary, convict, ideologue, c. 1905–1924.” Dissertations Publishing, 2007. ProQuest

2. Chaturvedi, Vinayak. “ A Revolutionary’s Biography: The Case of V. D. Savarkar.” Postcolonial Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, June 2013, pp. 124–139. ProQuest, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2013.823257.

3. Nandy, Ashis. “ A disowned father of the nation in India: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the demonic and the seductive in Indian nationalism.” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, 2 Jan. 2014, pp. 91–112. ProQuest, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649373.2014.882087.

Other Relevant Reading

1. Hindutva
2. The Indian War of Independence of 1857

Thomas Paine

1737-1809

Thomas Paine was an influential English-born philosopher, political activist, and revolutionary. He left a legacy on our modern ideologies and institutions, from deism to democracy to the separation of the church and state. His works provided the ideological basis for the American Revolution, and his direct and accessible rhetoric incited discussion and debate among the colonists. When Paine emigrated from Great Britain to the American colonies in 1774, tensions between the American colonists and British were reaching an all time high. The Stamp Tax Act and the Townshend Act further compounded tensions between the oppressed colonists and the aggressive British rule. In fact, Paine had arrived the same year that British rule imposed the Coercive Acts, which was a harsh response to the Boston Tea Party scandal. Paine’s ideas of rationalism, secular humanism, and democracy in Common Sense, (one of his most influential works), were heavily based on those of the Enlightenment philosophers. What distinguished his writings from theirs were his accessible style and simple but clear rhetoric, which enabled the common person to partake in contemporary debates and discussions regarding their political future. George Washington stated in a letter to a close friend: “I find Common Sense is working a powerful change[…]in the minds of many men.” Historian Edward Larkin provided further context to the situation, stating that “Paine’s pamphlet signaled a major shift in the discourse surrounding the colonies’ decade old conflict with Great Britain[… ]before its publication few spoke publicly about independence as a viable or even desirable alternative[…]after its publication independence became an attractive option to many of the colonial leaders.” Paine put into simple and direct words the powerful but inchoate feelings of the average colonist; he voiced the ideas and opinions of the voiceless, and by doing so, he incited a collectivised response to harsh British rule. However, his support of a radical democratic revolution extended beyond the colonies’ borders; in 1790, he traveled to France and actively supported the French Revolution to such an extent that he was granted honorary French citizenship for his work The Rights of Man. He advocated that a revolution is not only permissible but necessary when a government does not safeguard the natural and unalienable rights of its people. Also, he radically advocated social reforms (like minimum wage, old age pension, progressive income tax, and free universal education) which have clearly lasting implications to our day. Not all of Paine’s works were accepted so widely and eagerly; his work The Age of Reason critiques institutionalized religion and the legitimacy of the Bible, promoting the philosophy of deism as the alternative. It exposed the hypocrisy of the clergy and the corruption of the Catholic Church, as well as the need for reason rather than revelation. Clearly, aided by the tense atmosphere of the colonies and the overwhelming desire for change, Thomas Paine shaped the ideologies and institutions of the Western world with the stroke of his pen.

Zachary Manesiotis

Works Cited 

1. Kaye, Harvey J. Thomas Paine and the Promise of America: A History & Biography. Hill and Wang, 2007.
2. Durey, Michael. Transatlantic radicals and the early American republic. University Press of Kansas, 1997.
3. Claeys, Gregory. Thomas Paine: Soc & Pol Thought. Routledge, 2002.
4. Kaye, Harvey J. Thomas Paine and the Promise of America: A History & Biography. Hill and Wang, 2007.

Other Relevant Reading 

1. Paine, Thomas. Common sense. Penguin, 1986.
2. Paine, Thomas. The age of reason. Xist Publishing, 2016.
3. Paine, Thomas. Rights of man. No. 718. Broadview Press, 2011.

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevskii

July 12,1828 – October 29,1889

 

Nikolai Chernyshevskii was a Russian revolutionary democrat, philosopher, critic, and socialist. Chernyshevskii was born in Saratov Russia on the Volga, and was the son of a provincial Orthodox priest (a humorous fact considering his later denial of God as well as mans immortal soul) (Randall, 1-3). Chernyshevskii attended St. Petersberg University up until 1850, before becoming a school teacher in Saratov. Later, he returned to St. Petersburg to become a writer where he began his first publications for Russian magazine The Contemporary. The celebrated Russian writer’s most notable and influential works are The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Actuality, The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy, and What is to be Done? (Randall, 4-5). Chernyshevskii’s works act as a major platform used to spread his ideal of a socialist future, as well as the belief that science is the supreme means of achieving truth (Randall, 41). Nikolai Chernyshevskii was considered to be the father of the Russian Revolution and a major influence on the man who lead the October Revolution; Vladimir Lenin (Randall, 1).

Chernyshevskii began writing in order to broadcast his disapproval of Alexander II’s response to Russia’s defeat in the Crimean war. Alexander believed that Russia had lost this war due to their technological inferiority and weak infrastructure, his remedy to this was The Great Reforms, one of which being the Emancipation Edict of 1861. The Edict’s purpose was to abolish the binding of rural peasantry in Russia, which was also one of many enlightenment inspired steps following the success of the French Revolution (Sivers, 781). This reform was received with harsh criticism from Chernyshevskii, who viewed the edict as “grossly inadequate” and “mockingly cruel” (Randall, 5). Chernyshevskii took advantage of his position as a writer to spread his distaste for the implementation of capitalism in Russia. Chernyshevskii held a strong position that capitalist individualism meant unnecessary competition, destruction of human relationships for human gain, and an increase in poverty of the masses (Randall, 94). His distaste of capitalism rivalled that of his distaste for the social and political status quo of the Russia in which he grew up in. Chernyshevskii envisioned a socialist future where in which the entire system of Tsars, landlords, bureaucrats, soldiers, and police were swept (Randall, 3).

 

In 1862, Nikolai Chernyshevskii was imprisoned in the Fortress of Saint Peter and Paul for two years. He was arrested with no clear legal case, nonetheless his imprisonment was pursued with the intent of subduing the radical group that had grown in support Chernyshevskii’s writing. During his imprisonment, he wrote the famous novel What is to be Done?. The novel advocated for change and depicted how in which to orchestrate a revolution, inspiring civilians to follow in the footsteps of the dedicated and heroic Rakhmetov (Chernyshevskii, 1-3). After serving two years within the Fortress of Saint Peter and Paul, Chernyshevskii was sentenced to a ‘civil execution’ where he was stripped of his legal rights. Immediately following this he was sent to live out the rest of his life in Siberia and was never able to effectively write or publish again (Randall, 4).

Nikolai Chernyshevskii’s view on capitalism, revolution, and socialism was of extreme interest to Communist Russia. Many of these views coincided with the Communist Theory, and thus Chernyshevskii was applauded as the “great predecessor” of the Russian Revolution (Randall, 96). One of Nikolai Chernyshevskii’s most influential statements regarded the emancipation controversy of 1861. He recognized the supposed “liberation” as a fraud. Instead of liberating, the edict would only burden the peasants with huge payments to relieve the financially struggling nobility, as well as maintain the power of the Tsar (Randall, 97). He believed that Russia had been ruined by the Tsar for years and that it was time for a revolution (Randall, 98). In the early 1900s, it was this major discontent with the Tsarist regime (largely within the peasant community) that sparked the beginning of the Russian Revolution. The radical Bolshevik revolutionary party was led by Lenin, who’s agenda was sketched out in Nikolai Chernyshevskii’s “What is to be Done?” (Randall, 129). Nikolai Chernyshevskii’s influence extended even further, as he is still considered a remarkable man within Russian society. Literate Russians regard him as a wonderful philosopher, cultural critic, and a talented author of an amazing novel (Randall, 1).

 

Claire Girard

 

Works Cited

Chernyshevsky, Nikolay Gavrilovich, et al. What is to be done? Ardis, 1983. Randall, Francis Ballard. N.G. Chernyshevskii. Twayne, 1967.
Sivers, Peter Von, et al. Patterns of World History. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Girard 4

Walter Benjamin

July 1892- Sept 1940

Walter Benjamin, a German Jew, lived in the unluckiest time and place: Germany, at the turn of the 20th Century. History could not have chosen a more unfavourable time for Benjamin to be born; combining his race, religion and radical ideas with cultural change and growing hatred against Jews. Benjamin was a writer and philosopher who committed suicide in 1940 while trying to escape the Nazi’s. His ideas were a mix of marxism, German idealism, Romanticism, and Jewish mysticism. He was a devout religious man, believing Judaism to be the highest form of spirituality, and opposing what he called “capitalist religion” (Robinson, Andrew). His ideas opposing modernity and capitalism were profound, and have added to marxist ideology. He was friends with famous figures such as Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt. From 1933-1940, he spent his days exiled in France, where he produced some of his most famous pieces before his death (Wolfe, Ross.).

Benjamin felt alienation from German writers, and instead tended towards the culture and ideas of France thinkers (Benjamin, Walter et al.). France was emerging from the tides of revolution, switching power throughout the 1800s from free Republic to ruled Empire. In the late 19th Century, French thinkers were moving more towards Realism, and away from Romanticism. However, Benjamin would have felt more at home amongst the Romantics and Symbolists, who valued human emotion and traditional religious values. He also wrote about the “concept of criticism in German Romanticism,” combining ideas from the Enlightenment and Romanticism (Walter, Eiland, and McLaughlin).

In Walter Benjamin’s “Theses on History,” he explains marxism as a response to capitalism that has become a religion in France. He saw how capitalism changed the very fabric of cultural life and even the experience of time. Walter’s idea of homogeneous empty time occurs when moments are viewed as equal and interchangeable along a continuum. Empty time lacks any differentiation and special moments that give life meaning (Robinson, Andrew). This form of time is a result of capitalism, and creates an empty existence with no meaning, as labour and commodities are continually measured, used and replaced. Benjamin contrasts this empty existence with the jetztzeit, or “now time,” that exists in “messianic time” (Robinson, Andrew). In messianic time, all of history is compressed into a single moment in time, and real truth can be seen. Benjamin relates this to social movements and revolutions, as all past failed struggles are fulfilled in one messianic moment of redemption. History can only be understood through the lens of immediacy and redemption (Robinson, Andrew).

This was Benjamin’s philosophical reasoning for his marxist views on revolution. His ideas are such a wild mix of religious, political and romantic ideas. Reading his work transports one immediately to the social context in which he lived, yet his ideas transcend time. Benjamin’s writing itself is descriptive and vivid, you can see what he saw. For example, Benjamin starts his text, Berlin Childhood Around 1900, by a vivid description of his childhood home:

“The caryatids… may have [sung] a lullaby beside that cradle- a song containing little of what later awaited me, but nonetheless surrounding the theme through which the air of the courtyards has forever remained intoxicating to me… and it is precisely this air that sustains the images and allegories which preside over my thinking, just as the caryatids, from the heights of their loggias, preside over the courtyards of Berlin’s West End.” (Walter, Bullock, and Jennings. )

He switches in this quote from past to present, pulling the air of the courtyards throughout time and portraying his childhood innocence and adult awakening, connected by a common theme of the caryatids. In the same way, he views history as connecting through time with a common thread of revolution and messianic redemption.

What he considered his greatest work, left unfinished when he died, was the Arcades Project (Walter, Eiland, and McLaughlin). It was a series of observations on the Paris Arcades, the beautiful glass arches that cased the products of modernity and technological advances of his time (Schwartz, Vanessa R.). He used this project to portray the meaninglessness of bourgeois life, and communicate his marxist ideas. Benjamin did not view this collection as merely observations, but a blueprint for the ideal city, and wrote in a letter that he wished to apply his observations to the city (Walter, Eiland, and McLaughlin). He always considered his work more important than even his life, demonstrated by how he lugged a suitcase of writings over the mountains when trying to escape from the Nazi’s (Limone, Noa). His tragic death left many of his pieces unfinished, but as his friends and colleagues sorted through the writings he had left, it was only then that the world saw the true brilliance of this philosopher and his ideas became famous.

Veronica Klassen

Works Cited

Ball, David. “Walter Benjamin.” Ambit, no. 185, 2006, pp. 22–22. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/44336533.

Benjamin, Walter, Marcus Paul Bullock, and Michael William Jennings. (2003). Walter 

Benjamin: Selected Writings Volume 3 1935-1938. Harvard University Press.

Benjamin, Walter, Howard Eiland, and Kevin McLaughlin. The Arcades Project. Harvard

University Press, 1999.

Cohen, Josh. “Phenomenologies of Mourning: Gillian Rose and Walter Benjamin.” Women: A 

Cultural Review, vol. 9, 1998, pp. 47–61., doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09574049808578334.

Clark, T.J. “Reservations of the Marvellous.” London Review of Books, London Review of

Books, 21 June 2000, www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n12/tj-clark/reservations-of-the- marvellous.

Jeffries, Stuart. “Walter Benjamin: A Critical Life Review – Gambler, Womaniser, Thinker.”

The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 7 Aug. 2014, www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/07/walter-benjamin-critical-life-howard- eiland-michael-w-jennings-review.

Limone, Noa. “Chronicling Walter Benjamin’s Final Hours.” Haaretz.com, 7 Apr. 2013,

www.haaretz.com/chronicling-walter-benjamin-s-final-hours-1.449897.

Robinson, Andrew. “Walter Benjamin: Messianism and Revolution – Theses on

History.”Ceasefire Magazine, 30 Nov. 2013,

ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/walter-benjamin-messianism-revolution-theses-history/.

Schwartz, Vanessa R. “Walter Benjamin for Historians.” The American Historical Review, vol. 106, no. 5, 2001, pp. 1721–1743. JSTOR,  www.jstor.org/stable/2692744.

Wolfe, Ross. “Walter Benjamin’s Writings in German and in English.” The Charnel-House, 9 Jan. 2017,thecharnelhouse.org/2015/12/10/walter-benjamins-writings-in-german- and-in-english/.

Other Relevant Reading

Gilloch, Graeme. “Three Biographical Studies of Walter Benjamin — Walter Benjamin. Eine

Biographie by Werner Fuld / Spinne Im Eigenen Netz. Walter Benjamin: Leben Und Werk by Momme Brodersen / Benjaminiana Edited by Hans Puttnies and Gary Smith.” Telos, no. 91, 1992, pp. 173, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Politics Collection; Sociology Collection, libaccess.mcmaster.ca.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/docview/214365417?accountid=12347

Wohlfarth, Irving. No-Man’s-Land: On Walter Benjamin’s ‘Destructive Character’ in Walter 

Benjamin’s Philosophy, Benjamin, Andrew (Ed). Routledge, 1994, Philosopher’s Index,

libaccess.mcmaster.ca.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/docview/42793130?accountid=12347.

Li Shizeng

May 29, 1881 – 30 September, 1973

Li Shizeng (or Li Yü-ying) was born to a family who possessed major political connections with the Qing government in Beijing, China and grew up in a household that, through his father’s teachings, helped him foster his interest for agriculture and political activism. When political and social unrest arose in China, his father’s teachings would help Shizeng to eventually bridge his areas of interest in order to create a fast-growing and politically influential group that was intent on making changes to a system that was starting to fail (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 5).

Shizeng’s life in politics began when he was sent to Paris, joining the Chinese appointed minister to France as one of his attachés (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 5). While in Paris, Li enrolled at the École Pratique d’Agriculture de Chesnoy in Montargis, France which was where he first developed an interest in soy products. Li attempted to establish his own tofu company which would later go on to be instrumental in funding both his social campaigns and the Paris Anarchist movement (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 5). After several years of work on the tofu company, Shizeng

traveled back to his home country of China where he attempted to raise the initial investment needed to help get the company flourishing. Shizeng’s efforts were met with success, and his new investors allowed him to establish the world’s first soy dairy in Colombes, France (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 6). Shizeng’s tofu plant may seem insignificant, but it was instrumental for the foundation of the anarchist movement that would go on to spark revolution across the world through Li’s work-study movement. The goal for the plant was to provide a medium to help educate young Chinese students in his frugal-study mantra.

The idea of a growing resentment of the government was popularized by Sun Zhongshan (one of the first to call for social revolution) and was adopted by thousands of Chinese citizens with whom the sentiment resonated, including Li Shizeng. (Dirlik “The Revolution That Never Was”, 124). The growing tensions between the government and the people allowed Shizeng to recruit many young Chinese scholars who hungered for the study of revolutionary ways of thought. Through funding from the soy factory, Li was able to send thousands of students from China to France to work in his factories and study in French universities (Bailey, 441). Shizeng’s work-study revolved around the idea that a gap existed between scholars and the working class. Work-study was an attempt to assure that Shizeng’s students would not only be able to think logically, but they would also be able to work hard at the same time (in essence work-study allowed students to gain experience in all fields of work life) (Bailey, 451). The Chinese revolution of 1911 marked the point where the work-study program started to transition into a tool to train students in anarchist thought (Dirlik “The New Culture Movement” 265-266) which resulted in some of Li’s students later becoming government officials themselves (Bailey,

441).The frugal-study opposed the Qing government, through his teachings and through allowing regular students to study abroad which was against the Qing regulations. The Qing government allowed for government-sanctioned groups of small numbers to travel but Li’s movement allowed the common citizen to travel abroad (Bailey, 446).

Shortly after arriving in Paris, Li Shizeng met Élisée Reclus, whose own ideas combined with the growing discontent against the Qing government, pushed Shizeng towards becoming an anarchist (Dirlik “The Revolution That Never Was”, 126). After establishing his school for work- study and with the help of other revolutionary Chinese thinkers, Shizeng created the Revolutionary Alliance (Dirlik, 126) which followed the traditional ways of anarchist thought. Society would rule as there was no government to control thought or infringe on another’s freedoms (Clark, 4). The Revolutionary Alliance believed that there was one way to achieve this ruling society: through social revolution based on the agreement of the majority of society (Dirlik “The Revolution That Never Was”, 133-134). Through a series of essays, Shizeng and his peers called for a social revolution in China. Instead of a simple(ish) coup d’état, the anarchist social revolution would strive to overhaul the organizational structure of society which would result in a balanced utopia-esque nation. With the help of mass propaganda, outcries of discontent, the education provided through work-study and Li Shizeng’s and the Revolutionary Alliance’s return to China, an uprising was finally achieved with the Revolution of 1911. The Chinese people overthrew the Qing Emperor, Puyi on February 12, 1912, ending dynastic rule in China (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 7). Despite this, it was not Chinese society that ended up ruling the people but a series of fragmented governments (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 7). The leading thinkers in

anarchism including Li Shizeng went on to suppress the ideas of communism and then in a twist of irony, their own followers (Dirlik “The Revolution That Never Was”, 126). Revolution resulted in the opposite of its goal. Upon inspection of the current Chinese government, it is apparent that the removal of the Qing dynasty has only resulted in a different type of government that controls its population with an iron fist.

Benjamin Edwards

 

Other Relevant Reading:

Duara, Prasenjit. “Knowledge and Power in the Discourse of Modernity: The Campaigns Against Popular Religion in Early Twentieth-Century China.” The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 50, no. 1, 1991, pp. 67–83. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2057476.

Dirlik, Arif. “The Revolution That Never Was: Anarchism in the Guomindang.” Modern China, vol. 15, no. 4, 1989, pp. 419–462. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/189240.

Wang, Cheng-Hua. “Rediscovering Song Painting For The Nation: Artistic Discursive Practices In Early Twentieth-Century China.” Artibus Asiae, vol. 71, no. 2, 2011, pp. 221–246. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23350215.

Works Cited:

Bailey, Paul. “The Chinese Work-Study Movement in France.” The China Quarterly, no. 115, 1988, pp. 441–461. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/654865.’

Clark, John P. “What is Anarchism?” Nomos, vol. 19, 1978, pp. 3–28. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24219036.

Dirlik, Arif. “Vision and Revolution: Anarchism in Chinese Revolutionary Thought on the Eve of the 1911 Revolution.” Modern China, vol. 12, no. 2, 1986, pp. 123–165. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/189118.

Dirlik, Arif. “The New Culture Movement Revisited: Anarchism and the Idea of Social Revolution in New Culture Thinking.” Modern China, vol. 11, no. 3, 1985, pp. 251–300. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/188805.

Shurtleff, William, and Akiko Aoyagi. “History Of His Work With Soyfoods and Soybeans In France, and His Political Career In China and Taiwan (1881-1973) .” Soyinfo Centre, Soyinfo Centre, 8 June 2011, soyinfo centre, http://www.soyinfocenter.com/pdf/144/LiYy.pdf

Millenarianism

Millenarianism 

From the Latin millenaries and meaning “one who believes in the coming of the (Christian) millennium” the word millenarian dates back to the 1550’s.  Its root word ‘mille’ means one thousand and is in reference to the thousand year reign of Christ on Earth after the ultimate conflict between good and evil at Armageddon as written in Revelation to John.  The belief of the coming of a ‘new world’ is shared by many including Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists.  Millenarianism is now more broadly defined as a cross-cultural ideology, wherein expectation of the impending and final confrontation will result in believers exulting in a perfected temporal world rather than in the afterlife.  Most see radical upheaval and revolt against sociopolitical authority as a means to achieve Heaven upon Earth.

Historical Significance

Millenarianism was the most accepted eschatological (the area of theology that pertains to death, judgement, and the final fate of the soul and humanity) thinking in the mid-1600’s in England.  Debate and dialogue around millenarian views continued well into the 18^th century with its spread to Continental Europe and North America.  At this same time philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment were looking towards science and reason and away from autocratic politic policies and religious doctrine as the ideals for an improved and progressive society.  This questioning of traditional values and beliefs was an impetus for political revolution and disorder. Historians have applied the theological principles of millenarianism to support revolutionary principles.  The incitement of chaotic upheaval could thus be validated by divine mandate and situated within an apocalyptic timeline.  Millenarian and apocalyptic concepts are seen to be synonymous with revolution.  Contemporary scholars, acknowledging the connection historians have identified between millenarianism and democratic thought, look to millenarian principles in their attempt to better understand the ensuing social tensions that result when oppressed peoples, in their attempt to defend and regenerate their social identity, raise opposition, at times violent, towards their oppressors.  Millenarianism based research has two separate lines of thinking.  The first centres on millenarianism as a socially effective process while the second maintains it is a social pathology with central themes of dissident movements effecting social change through violence or war.

Key Historical Proponents

In the New Testament of the Bible, the Book of Revelations (Apocalypse of John) 20:1-10 tells of the first resurrection of the blessed who will reign with Christ for a thousand year and the Judgement of Satan.  This is the original source on which millenarian scholars base their philosophies.  In 1627 Johann Heinrich Aslted (1588-1638) published Diatribe de mille annos in Germany.  In England, that same year, Joseph Mede (1586-1638) completed his book Clavis Apocalyptica.  While Aslted went on to become one of the most prominent encyclopedists it was Mede’s thoughts on millenarianism that became most influential.  His philosophies were supported by enlightened thinkers such as John Milton (1608-1674), Henry More (1614-1687), and Isaac Newton (1642-1726).  Mede’s writings, premised on apocalyptic themes in the Bible, founded the original ideas as to the manifestation of millenarianism in English apocalyptic thinking.  English philosopher David Hartley (1705-1757), an admirer of Newton and Locke, in particular Locke’s theory on the association of ideas, published Observations on Man, His Frame, His Duties, and His Expectations in 1749.  Based on the theory of proto-psychology, Hartley explored the idea that the brain and the soul are one and the same and he believed that the final destiny of the immortal soul was directly connected with the nature of the brain.  Both Mede and Hartley, in the true spirit of Enlightenment thinking, explored millenarianism beyond its theological limitations.  Pankaj Mishra explores millenarianism in his book Age of Anger.  He notes the concept of Heaven on Earth was created by the philosophers of the Enlightenment.  The French Revolution has often being studied in terms of a Second Coming and Mishra looks to Saint-Just (1767-1794), a zealous French Revolutionary, who passionately believed ‘“the idea of happiness was new to Europe”’ and Tocqueville (1805-1859) who compared it to “Islam in that it ‘flooded the earth with it soldiers, apostles, and martyrs’” as examples (Mishra 156).   In true Mishra style he lists Herzen, Voltaire and Marx, Russian revolutionaries Belinsky and Bakunin, Chernyshevsky, Dobroliubov and Stalin, Italian revolutionaries Mazzini and Papini, and Islamist ideologues Al-e-Ahmad, Shariati, and Qutb, and India’s Savarkar as proponents of millenarian philosophies.  Moving beyond the French Revolution many conflicts and ideologies have been researched within the apocalyptic timeline: Marxism, the Russian Revolution (1917), Islamic radicalism, Hindu nationalism, the Iranian revolution (1978-1979), the demolition of the Babri Masjid (1992), the Branch Davidian tragedy in Waco, Texas (1993), the Oklahoma City bombing (1995), among others.

Claire Kirkby

 

Bibliography

Barr, Kara. “‘An Indissoluble Union’: Mechanism, Mortalism, and Millenarianism in the Eschatology of David Hartley’s Observations on Man.” History of Religions, vol. 55, no. 3, Feb. 2016, pp. 239-268. EBSCOhost, libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLAn3848246&site=ehost-live&scope=site.  Accessed 8-15 October 2017.

Cole, Juan. “Iranian Millenarianism and Democratic Thought in the 19th Century.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, 1992, pp. 1–26. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/163759.  Accessed 8-15 October 2017.

Jue, Jeffrey. “Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586-1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism”  International Archives of the History of Ideas, vol. 194, 2006, pp. 1-7 and 19-33. Springer and Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4293-0_4.  Accessed 8-15 October 2017.

Lee, Martha, and Herbert Simms. “American Millenarianism and Violence: Origins and Expression.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, vol. 1, no. 2, 2007, pp. 107–127. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41887580.  Accessed 8-15 October 2017.

Mishra, Pankaj.  The Age of Anger: A History of the Present.  New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.  2017.  Print.

Marxism

Marxism is born of the ideas produced by Karl Marx (1818-1883), and is the set of ideals that communism is founded upon. Marx famously wrote The Communist Manifesto with Friederich Engels, which was an extensive analysis of the class struggle which Marx believed all society was based upon. The ideals of Marxism are founded upon the principle that the ruling, upper echelon of society (capitalists) controls the lower classes who are the ones that truly are the producers and workers. This, Marx believed, was perpetuated by the lie that “the interests of the capitalist and of the worker are… one in the same.” (Marx 1847) Marxism heavily criticizes capitalist economy and the methods by which said economy is controlled. Essentially, Marxism asserts that the fruits of the labour produced by the proletariat (working class) belong to the bourgeoisie (upper class). This results in alienation of the proletariat from their work and a surplus of goods for the bourgeoisie. Marxist theory explains that ones social class is based off their relation to the “means of production”: the way that goods are produced in a society (factories, workshops etc.). The closer one is to the production of goods the lower their class is. However, the means to produce are controlled solely by the bourgeoisie. The goal of a Marxist society would be to “restore . . . individual property on the basis of … the common possession of the earth and the means of production.” (Marx 1885)

Marxists see the transition from capitalism to socialism as an inevitable step in human evolution and revolution. (Lenin 1914) There have been several revolutions based upon Marxist ideas in the 20^th century. The Cultural Revolution of China from 1966 to 1976 was an attempt to preserve communist ideology. It returned Mao Zedong to power, and economically paralyzed China to a certain degree. The Russian Revolution of 1917 (October Revolution) was a Proletarian Revolution which created the precursor to the Soviet Union.

Astrid Moore

 

Bibliography

Marx, Karl. Wage Labour and Capital. 1847. Marx/Engels Internet Archive, 1999.

Marx, Karl. Capital. 1885. Translated by Ben Fowkes and David Fernbach. Penguin, 2004.

Lenin, Vladimir. Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism. 1914. Lenin Internet Archive, 2008.

Messianism

Messianism is a term that was first used in a religious context. The root word “Messiah” originated in roughly 1800 BC in the middle east in the Jewish faith as a word for a saviour appointed by God. Messianism is often used in history to describe a movement in which a certain party of people are believers in a semi-divine hero, allowing for radical faith in the party. The term has shifted to explain a more personal messiah when among contemporary history scholars.

Viewing certain historical actions through the lens of messianism can provide insight into the effectiveness of many leaders throughout history. Messianism is a very powerful tool that can be used by leaders to inspire large groups of people to fight radically for their cause. The power to unite the masses is a tool that has caused many revolutions throughout history, making messianism a worthy term to know while studying history. By studying messianism a historian can use the context of society at the time to determine why certain leaders were successful in certain endeavours such as revolutions or political movements. Beliefs of specific groups of people at certain times can also be analyzed using messianism, as historians can look into why societies believed in certain political leaders and their movements enough to view them as semi-divine. The motivations of societies can also be seen as historians can look at the complete chronology of messianic leaders to uncover what their true motivations were free from the bias and lack of information at the time.

Messianism is often discussed in the context of the Russian revolution, with many scholars stating that the Russian people turned to the messianic leaders of the socialist movement to combat the stagnation during the Romanov dynasty. Viewing this historical event through the lens of messianism allows for historians to gain insight as to why the leaders of the socialist movement were able to inspire the masses to revolt against the establishment, studying what is effective about these leaders. The Russian revolution saw that one messianic leader Vladimir Lenin obtained power in the state, this eventually led to Joseph Stalin becoming a messianic leader with malicious intent, making him a very valuable figure to study. The term messianism has evolved throughout history from a savior of all to a more personal figure that all can understand, this says a lot about how to inspire the masses. The personal messiah for every citizen in the mass population makes every person in society more willing to radicalize for their leader.

John Rivera

 

Bibliography
Krahn, C. (1963). Russia: Messianism-Marxism. Journal of Bible and Religion, 31(3), 210-215. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1460114
Lanternari, V. (1962). Messianism: Its Historical Origin and Morphology. History of Religions, 2(1), 52-72. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1062037

MISHRA, P. (2018). AGE OF ANGER: a history of the present. S.l.: PICADOR.