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.

Salvador Allende

June 26, 1908 – September 11, 1973

Salvador Allende was the 56th president of Chile. What differs him from other presidents, however, would be that he was the first democratically elected president with a socialist and openly self-proclaimed marxist agenda. His presidential term was between 1970 to 1973, the Cold War era.

To understand his significance, it would probably be key to understand the political and social situation of Chile during his time in politics. The political structure in Chile is similar to the one in the traditional western model, with a left, right and centre spectrum (Navia & Rodrigo, 2017). There were numerous presidents before Allende’s election, all offering different solutions to the different problems the Chilean public faced, such as economic issues like housing and inflation that was still prevalent during Allende’s campaign (Drobny, 1983). When looking at the limited available Chilean voter data, Allende had high popularity amongst low income workers, and those with both lower and higher educational status, but not those in the middle (Navia & Rodrigo, 2017). Looking at this information alone, it is very easy to make the assumption that Allende’s support and victory came from a class based one. Allende represented something different for Chile than the more western based ideologies. Socialist and communistic ideas from figures like Fidel Castro were prominent in Latin America (Power, 2008). Their influence caused guerrilla warfare in many places in Latin America, looking for change and an uprising, except for Chile, which heavily stayed towards its electoral voting process as a method for change (Power, 2008). Allende and his marxist ideologies were alluring to the struggling classes and scholars of Chile demanding change and not receiving it from the western model.

 

It is important to note that Allende’s campaign and election was a part of the Cold war era Latin America’s front, with the Soviet Union supporting Allende, and the United States opposed to him. The U.S invested millions into an anti-Allende campaign (Power, 2008), while the Soviets funded Allende’s candidacy, marking this as a clear Cold War confrontation between socialist and western ideals (Kedar, 2015). Allende’s presidency was almost a clear cut example of how the Cold War is usually described: Allende was a socialist, which immediately made him an enemy of the United states and allies with the Soviet Union, which resulted in a large political battleground to be set. The United States demonized socialism and Allende himself throughout his campaign through radio, newspaper and other outlets (Power, 2008). When Allende did obtain presidency, United States President Nixon stated to his advisors to ‘Make the (Chilean) Economy Scream’ to combat Allende’s government (Navia & Rodrigo, 2017). Inflation rose more in Chile and people either blamed the chilean government, or the governments opposition on the situation (Navia & Rodrigo, 2017). Despite the Soviet Unions economic aid and support towards Allende’s government (Power, 2008), Allende was cornered in a CIA and upper class influenced coup d’etat, where he proceeded to kill himself. This Cold War conflict reinforces the idea of the modern ‘age of aggression.’ Conflict between western ideologies and socialist beliefs creating angry men and conflict between people.

Gurwinder Sidhu

Works Cited:

Drobny, Andres. “THE INFLUENCE OF MINIMUM WAGE RATES ON THE LEVEL AND DISTRIBUTION OF REAL WAGES IN CHILE, 1960-1972.” Bulletin Of Latin American Research 2, no. 2 (April 1983): 17-38. Historical Abstracts, EBSCOhost

KEDAR, CLAUDIA. 2015. “Salvador Allende and the International Monetary Fund, 1970– 1973: The Depoliticisation and Technocratisation of Cold War Relations.” Journal Of Latin American Studies 47, no. 4: 717-747. Historical Abstracts, EBSCOhost

NAVIA, PATRICIO, and RODRIGO OSORIO. 2017. “‘Make the Economy Scream’? Economic, Ideological and Social Determinants of Support for Salvador Allende in Chile, 1970–3.” Journal Of Latin American Studies 49, no. 4: 771-797. Historical Abstracts, EBSCOhost.

Power, Margaret. 2008. “The Engendering of Anticommunism and Fear in Chile’s 1964 Presidential Election.” Diplomatic History 32, no. 5: 931-953. Historical Abstracts, EBSCOhost

Other Relevant Reading

Bray, Marjorie Woodford. 2013. “The Making of Chile: With Poems and Guns: A Personal Recollection.” Latin American Perspectives 40, no. 1: 187-200. America: History & Life, EBSCOhost.

George Orwell

June 25^th, 1903 – January 21^st, 1950

Born Eric Arthur Blair in Motihari, India, and later adopting the penname George Orwell, is one of the most influential and read authors in the world (Robert Forman). He grew up in England in, what he describes as a “lower-upper-middle class family,” where he attended Eton College and received subpar grades that did not allow him to attend university (Forman). Due to this he joined the British Foreign Office and worked as an Imperial Officer in Burma until 1927 (Forman). Upon his arrival back in England, he began his writing career, and started his transformation into a socialist author (Brendan McQuade). His experiences with his class struggles growing up, and of those in Burma shaped his political ideals, ones where he questioned the role of Britain in an imperialistic context, and the idea of social progress and who it benefits (McQuade).

Orwell also joined the British Independent Labour Party, a socialist political party that advocated for the rights of the working class (Robert Forman). He attended summer meetings and lent his name to fundraising efforts (Forman). During December 1936, while still a member of the Independent Labour Party, he became interested in “the Republican cause in Spain” and arrived there as a volunteer to help the efforts (Forman). He then became an active member of Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista, a Marxist party who fought for legislative reformation (Forman). He then fought in the Spanish civil war until he suffered a throat wound due to a sniper bullet, which caused him to return to England in the spring of 1937 (Brendan McQuade). He then began to write Homage to Catalonia, expressing the differences between communism and Marxism, and therefore becoming a strong denouncer of communism, making all his future work targets of communist press (McQuade).

George Orwell also attempted to fight for Great Britain in the second World War, due to his ethics, he saw western imperialism as less evil then fascism, and he believed that the British empire would dramatically change in the war, but was denied enlistment due to health concerns (Robert Forman). After the war, many communist groups made him and his writings their champion, but he strongly denounced them, as he was a strong disbeliever in the ideology (Forman). Orwell was a strong socialist, and stuck to his ethics consistently, sometimes costing him success and friendship, but “he refused to become either a tool of British imperialism or a dupe of communism” (Forman). He was a realist, and believed that based on a means for survival, and not for the sake of peace, Europe would unite after the second World War as he assumed “that violence is endemic to social life and that the force-wielding sovereign cannot be done away with” (McQuade). He was not a pacifist and thought that violence was necessary to create order within society (McQuade). Orwell was “suspicious of a politics managed by experts as of the utopian anticipation of a violence-free world” (McQuade). This is a theme prominent throughout his writings, the concept of utopia and dystopia, that was shaped by his experiences. Orwell’s writing from the mid 20^th century still provides discourse on the modern political state, thereby justifying his historical significance.

Robyn Sidhu

Works Cited

Brendan, McQuade. ““The Road from Mandalay to Wigan Is a Long One and the Reasons for Taking It Aren’t Immediately Clear”: A World-System Biography of George Orwell.” Journal of World-Systems Research, Vol 21, Iss 2, Pp 313-338 (2015), no. 2, 2015, p. 313. EBSCOhost, doi:10.5195/jwsr.2015.7.

Forman, Robert J. “George Orwell.” Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, January.

EBSCOhost, libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=88801636&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Gerson, Gal. “George Orwell on Political Realism and the Future of Europe.” European Legacy, vol. 22, no. 1, Feb. 2017, pp. 1-15. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/10848770.2016.1242294.

Stone, John. “George Orwell on Politics and War.” Review of International Studies, vol. 43, no. 2, Apr. 2017, pp. 221-239. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1017/S026021051600036X.

Other Relevant Reading

Orwell, George. 1984. Harvill Secker, 2016. Print.

Orwell, George. Homage to Catalonia ; Down and out in Paris and London.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010.

Rodden, John. “Orwell’s Significance for Intellectuals Today: ‘A Presence in Our Lives’.” The

Midwest Quarterly, no. 3, 2009, p. 216. EBSCOhost, libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.197797430&site=eds-live&scope=site.

George Sand

1804-1876

Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin was a French novelist who wrote under the pseudonym of George Sand. Living during the general civil unrest of the 1800s, she took part in the socio-political movements of Europe, and expressed her views through her many literary works. Sand was the daughter of an aristocratic bastard and a prostitute. This put her in an interesting position: she received an aristocratic level education, thanks to her father, but was disposed to fight for equality for all people, thanks to her mother (What A Woman 72). Among many other things, Sand was a socialist, feminist, and romantic.

Sand, the socialist, had a clear view of what society should look like and expressed it in her novels (Moses 423). Sand’s works often depict characters of different social rankings coming together in love for one another; they effectively abandon, or ignore, the imposed social hierarchy and try to pursue a life of community (Beyer, Kluck 206). For example, in her novel La Ville Noir, Sand explores the hardship of the working class, the challenges of romantic love, and the “dehumanizing” consequences created when compromising between the two (White 703). Her novels’ influence were far reaching; from USA and England to Russia and Hispanoamerica (Beyer, Kluck 206). She inspired many other writers from all areas of the world, such as Turgenev, Barry, Fuller, and Avellaneda, to write and disseminate socialist views (Beyer, Kluck 206). In addition, Sand supported change, but not top-down reforms. Instead, she believed the general masses would overcome inequalities of all kinds and evolve into a better and just society (Walton 1009).

Sand, the feminist, was not afraid to stand for what women deserved, but was also tactful in what items she pushed for. She was realistic. This meant she sometimes went against the mainstream feminist movement (Moses 423). Sand opposed mainstream liberal feminism, as she stated, “women should change popular attitudes through rational persuasion and gradual reforms before engaging in political activism,” (Walton 1014). For example, she championed equality in marriage, but not divorce; advocated female political involvement, but not women’s suffrage – she understood that conditions were not right and that society was not ready for such radical changes (Moses 423). She was criticized heavily for most of her stances; but she did set achievable and sensible goals for women to strive towards. For example, in the 1848 Revolutions, Sand, alongside many others, fought for the “ability for women to sustain their families through waged as well as household labour…not in suffrage, but in women’s capacity to act as both producers and consumers under just and equitable conditions,” (DeGroat 399). Furthermore, in her novels she demonized the oppressive patriarchy by showing how it harmed and limited both her female and male characters (Beyer, Kluck 206). Likewise, Sand riskily challenged gender norms imposed on her by cross-dressing, smoking cigars, having multiple love affairs, and even by choosing George Sand as her pseudonym (What A Woman 72).

Sand, the romantic, countered “masculinist romanticism” and offered the female meaning of romanticism. For men, melancholy poetry, culture, and nature were at the forefront of romanticism. For Sand, however, as for many other female romantics, romanticism was a way to abandon the self “through historical, political, and spiritual efforts” and work to unite the people (Zonana 176). Whereas male romanticism focused on admiration of grand concepts, female romanticism tended to be more individual in scope – more direct and action based (Dale 83). Novels were at the forefront of female romanticism. With her plots and characters, Sand explored social issues through a “female sensibility” (Zonana 177). She held deeply humanistic beliefs that promoted solidarity, progress, and which discouraged violence; she believed in acting for her cause (Grossman 20). Moreover, in her novel La Petite Fadette, Sand explores her “ideal community” by asserting the ideal person: one with “a quick mind and a tender heart”; a person who accepts and exhibits the best aspects inherent to men and women (Grossman 25). Similarly, she was attracted to the “universal religion” proclaimed by two French priests which promoted human progress and unity, she made efforts to politicize it, and was also opposed to religious persecution (Dale 82). Further, she believed artists had a mission to guide humanity towards new heights; thus, making them some of the most crucial members of society (Dale 98). Art, which expresses truth and emotion, and inspires change, was the most powerful tool for Sand, one which she evidently took advantage of.

Sadly, with the failure of the 1848 revolutions and the realization that her ideal society would not come to pass, Sand, became more conservative and was less involved in the socio-political movements of the day (Moses 424). Her notoriety and infamy made her works more widespread; but today, her scandalous life is more well known than her literary contributions or her impact on social movements (What A Woman 72). Even so, she was a source of great inspiration for many, both within France and on a global scale.

Salomé Rodríguez Solarte

Works Cited

Beyer, Sandra and Frederick Kluck. “George Sand and Gertrudis Gómez de Avellaneda”.

Nineteenth-Century French Studies 19.2. (1991): 203-209. Web.

Dale, Catherine. “The Mirror of Romanticism: Images of Music, Religion and Art Criticism in

George Sand’s Eleventh ‘Lettre d’un Voyageur’ to Giacomo Meyerbeer,” The Romantic Review 87.1 (1996): 83-108. Web.

DeGroat, Judith. “Working-Class Women and Republicanism in the French Revolution of 1848,”

History of European Ideas 38.3 (2012): 399-407. Web.

Grossman, Kathryn. “The Ideal Community of George Sand’s La Petite Fadette,” Utopian 

Studies 6.1. (1995): 19-29. Web.

Moses, Claire. “Eve’s Proud Descendants” The Journal of Modern History 75.2.

(2003): 422-424. Web.

Walton, Whitney. “Writing the 1848 Revolution: Politics, Gender, and Feminism in the Works

of French Women of Letters,” French Historical Studies 18.4. (1994): 1001-1024. Web.

“What A Woman; George Sand,” The Economist 372.8386 (2004): 72-73. Web.

White, Claire. “Labour of Love: George Sand’s La Ville Noire and Emile Zola’s Travail,” The 

Modern Language Review 106.3. (2011): 697-708. Web.

Zonana, Joyce. “Tracing Women’s Romanticism.” Tulsa’s Studies in Women’s Literature 27.1.

(2008): 176-177. Web.

Other Relevant Reading

Barry, Joseph. “Infamous Woman: The Life of George Sand,” Our Image (n.a.) (1977): 19. Web.

Brown, Penny. “The Reception of George Sand in Spain,” Comparative Literature Studies 25.3.

(1988): 203-224. Web.

Mitzman, Arthur. “Michelet and Social Romanticism: Religion, Revolution, Mature,” Journal Of 

the History of Ideas 57.4 (1996): 659-682. Web.

Richards, L.F Sylvie. “Finding Her Own Voice: George Sand’s Autobiography,” Women’s 

Studies An Interdisciplinary Journal 22. (1993): 137-144. Web.

Karl Marx

May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883

If you have ever taken an economics class, you may have heard of a man named Karl Marx. Karl Marx was an influential German political philosopher and was often referred to as “the Aristotle of the nineteenth century” (Karl Marx; his life and work, p. 322). Marx is well known for his contributions to philosophical and economic thought and for helping to shape the political structure of the modern world (Barry, Thomas F. 2016). Not only did Marx’s philosophy influence social and economic thought, it also had a great influence in literature and arts. (Barry, Thomas F. 2016). Marx opposed of previous philosophical tradition and philosophers such as Johann Fichte and George Hegel (Barry, Thomas F. 2016). Karl Marx’s work was controversial and angered many people. As a result, he was expelled from many countries and cities. Marx was ordered by the government to leave Germany, Paris, Brussels, and Cologne (Barry, Thomas F. 2016). Marx and his family were ordered to leave Cologne in 1849 and moved to London where he and his family lived the rest of their lives (Barry, Thomas F. 2016). In June of 1843, Marx got married to Jenny and later moved to Paris in October where he met fellow German philosopher, Friedrich Engels (Barry, Thomas F. 2016). Together, they came up with Marxism – “a social, political and economic philosophy that examines the effect of capitalism on labour, productivity and economic development” (Investopedia 2017). They also worked together on several books such as The Holy Family, The German Ideology and The Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx: The Revolutionary as Educator, p. 17). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ work on Marxism have lead to Communist Party revolutions in many countries such as Russia and the People’s Republic of China (Barry, Thomas F. 2016). Leaving Germany to live in Paris drastically changed Marx’s views on social problems, which can be seen in his 1844 economic-philosophical manuscripts (Karl Marx: The Revolutionary as Educator, p. 15). He began to see that political issues arise from class division and oppression (Karl Marx: The Revolutionary as Educator, p. 15).  Marx also came up with the theory of historical materialism which explains that society consists of a base and superstructure (Karl Marx: The Revolutionary as Educator, p. 25). Marx claimed that the base is the society’s means of production and the distribution of their produced wealth (Barry, Thomas F. 2016). However, the social superstructure is a lot more diverse than the base. The social superstructure consisted of law, science, religion and philosophy (Karl Marx: The Revolutionary as Educator p. 26). Marx and Engels also claimed that social revolution can result from conflict between forces and relations of production (Karl Marx: The Revolutionary as Educator p. 26). Karl Marx was known to use the term alienation very frequently to describe the separation of things that should naturally be together (Karl Marx p. 3). Marx used alienation most often to describe the separation between workers and their full potential as a human being (Barry, Thomas F. 2016). He explains that workers are so committed to their job that they don’t have time to develop other facets of their personality (Barry, Thomas F. 2016).

Christina Wu

Works cited:

Barry, Thomas F. “Karl Marx.” Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia (January 2016): Research Starters, EBSCOhost (accessed November 12, 2017).

Small, Robin. 2014. “Karl Marx The Revolutionary as Educator.” BASE, EBSCOhost (accessed November 12, 2017).

Spargo, John. 1910. “Karl Marx.” HathiTrust, EBSCOhost (accessed November 12, 2017).

Staff, Investopedia. “Marxism.” Investopedia. August 26, 2010. Accessed November 12, 2017. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marxism.asp.

Wood, Allen W. Karl Marx. London: Routledge, 2012.

Mao Zedong

December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976
Mao Zedong, alike his contemporary powerful and polarizing figures of the 20th century, rose to prominence in a time where rapid industrialization and modernization of the western world was shaking the fabric of many nations across the globe. At the time of Zedong’s birth, China was in a period of humiliation caused by their defeat in various battles. Furthermore, China also felt immense imperial pressures by recently modernized nations such as Japan under the final years of the crumbling Qing dynast y (Spence, 1999). Late 19th/Early 20th century China’s leaders were struggling to modernize on pace with other powerful nations, causing many to surpass them in industry and military technology, leaving them vulnerable to invasion from foreign powers. The civil unrest that followed this poor leadership by the Qin dynasty led to a coup in the early 20th century, creating an opportune power vacuum for Zedong, who would rise to power soonafter. Zedong was one of the founders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1921, which engaged in civil war with the Kuomintang nationalist party in 1927. Zedong became leader of the party in 1935, making him the voice of Chinese communism. Japan’s successful invasion of China in 1937 gave Zedong the opportunity to capitalize on the civil unrest overflowing within Chinese masses. Zedong used the invasion to highlight the failures of the anti-communist government, who were unable to defend China from Japanese invaders. (Karl, 2010). Ze dong began his strategic campaign to become the top seat of power (chairman) by

ap pealing to the peasants of China, which made up approximately 85% of its population (Lynch, 2004). Zedong gained the trust of the masses by stating that the CCP would grant power to the peasants to organize an uprising in which landowners would be overthrown and their land equally distributed, placing the peasants on large farmlands (Lynch, 2004). Zedong obtained absolute power in China in 1949 when he was elected as Chairman of the Central People’s Government. The most infamous period of Zedong’s leadership was his enactment of rapid societal reform in an attempt to move China from a heavily agrarian society to an industrial one, resembling their Soviet neighbours. China’s goal, through a series of 5 year plans, was to posses higher productive capabilities than Great Britain, leader of the Industrial Revolution (Clements, 2006). To achieve this goal, Zedong believed that all goods must be collectivised. Millions of peasants were moved to communes with land to farm, along with government officials to oversee production. The extremely high quotas set by Zedong were often much higher than the communes were capable of producing, prompting the officials to lie about the amount of produce. Due to the false numbers reported by commune officials, most of the grain produced was taken for collectivisation, leaving millions of peasants to starve to death (Gay, Kathlyn). Although China under rule of Zedong did not become a highly industrialized socialist state as the Soviets did, they managed to maintain their socialist principles, swiftly crushing any resistance late into the 20th century. Aside from being the coordinator behind one of the biggest genocides of the 20th century, Zedong’s significance as a figure in international history also comes from his solidification of China as a communist power. This solidification was accomplished through his cultural revolution, taking place in 1966, which removed all remnants of traditional or capitalistic elements of society. The reverberations of Zedong’s Socialist state are still felt today as China remains a Socialist Republic. China has been molded into the unique state we observe today through bloody reforms that could only be accomplished by a dictator unequivocally focused on a goal such as Mao Zedong.

 

John Rivera

 

Works Cited

Clements, Jonathan, Mao Zedong , Haus Publishing, 2006

Gay, Kathlyn, Mao Zedong’s China , Twenty-First Century Books, Aug 1, 2012
Karl, Rebecca, Mao Zedong and China in the Twentieth-Century World: A Concise History ,

Duke University Press, 2010
Lynch, Michael, Mao , London ; New York : Routledge, 2004.
Spence, Jonathan, Mao Zedong: A Life , New York : Lipper/Viking, 1999.

Antonio Gramsci

22 January 1891 – 27 April 1937

Antonio Gramsci was born on the island of Sardinia in January of 1891.  Born into Italy during an interesting political climate, he witnessed poverty and hardship in his youth and experienced first hand the class divide between mainland Italians and Sardinians. After his father was arrested for being outwardly political he was forced to drop out of school to work, being subjected to long and painful workdays, affecting him socially and physically. He deemed those years traumatic, they were formative for the way he viewed and interacted with the world and consequently contributed to molding his political thought.

Ultimately, Gramsci went back to complete school and excelled academically but remained stunted socially. In his final year, one of his teachers offered him the opportunity to write for a political journal and became a frequent contributor. In 1911, Gramsci received a full scholarship to the University of Turin where his intellect flourished taking interest in history, linguistics and literature. By 1913, Gramsci was experiencing regular health problems which put his scholarship in jeopardy – at the same time he was also developing more of an involvement in politics and decided to join the Italian Socialist Party. Originally, he was mostly motivated by Sardinia’s political problems and felt compelled to be part of the solution for the proletariat, he dropped out of school shortly after. Gramsci occupied his time contributing to political journals and papers. In 1917, Gramsci witnessed from a far the Russian Revolution and along with a developing enthusiasm for Lenin, shared his interpretations about both through his newspaper columns. Gramsci left for the Soviet Union and during that time, Benito Mussolini was elected prime minister and his Fascist regime was bordering on becoming harsh.

Up until 1926, he remained active in Italian politics working in the parliament and with the socialist party while the fascist movement gained more support, that November he was arrested. In 1928 he was sentenced to 20 years in prison and at his trial it was repeated that Mussolini demanded that Gramsci’s brain must be prevented to function for the next 20 years.

During his time in prison, he wrote over 3000 pages of theory, which later was published into The Prison Notebooks. Gramsci’s political thought stemmed from Marxism and the result of his writings presented evolved explanations of certain concepts, most notably hegemony. For Gramsci, hegemony meant that a class has managed to convince other classes in it’s society to accept moral, cultural and political values, he also deemed that you must never take hegemony for granted and continual maintenance is required (Roger, 37). He introduced the concept of domination by consent – which society was split up into two overlapping types, one that rules through force, a ‘political society’ and one that rules through consent a ‘civil society’. It could be said that he went further than any other Marxist thinker by recognizing the importance of the superstructure and the force of ideas in producing historical change (Joll, 85). This group of work offered a new perspective on concepts and is considered to be some of the most revolutionary developments in regards to political theory in the 20^th century.

Antonio Gramsci was moved out of the prison after 11 years in exile because his health deteriorated. He passed away at the age of 46 in a clinic in Rome.

Julia Karpiuk

 

Bibliography

Joll, James. Gramsci. Fontana/Collins Paperback. 1977.

Simon, Roger. Gramsci’s Political Thought. Lawrence and Wishhart, 1982.

Davidson Alastair. ANTONIO GRAMSCI: towards and intellectual biography. Haymarket Books, 2017.

Buttigieg, Joseph A. “The Legacy of Antonio Gramsci.” Boundary 2 14, no. 3 (1986): 1-17. doi:10.2307/303230.

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

Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky

1811 – 1848

“What is, what ought to be”, was one of the first thoughts Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky had as he lived in peace within the Tsarist autocracy. Belinsky was born to a rural doctor in 1811, not being born to an elite family, he had worked for his own living. Although, he did not follow typical ways of rising within society such as following his father’s footsteps. Instead, Belinsky started as a freelance journalist. Being expelled from his university in 1832 because of political activity, he soon became one of the most influential revolutionary literary critics in Russia (Gunn, 2017).

“What is, is not what ought to be”, was a transformed thought that Belinsky passionately embraced. This change of thought came about by Russia’s position at the tipping edge of Europe (Matthewson, 2000). A contradictory battle of excluding Europe yet to become more like her fueled the stomachs of those who were pushed aside by the Tsarist regime. A new soul was born within the rising Western ideals (Epstein, 2006). A war began within Russia between those who were concerned with this mimicry and those who wanted to use them as a stepping stone towards power. Critics needed an area to voice their arguments against the issue of serfdom; the aristocracy needed an area to censor others and voice their own thoughts. Literacy was a perfect and equal battleground for both sides (Matthewson, 2000). Much of the population was conflicted, looking down at the revolutionaries’ stand on social and economic matters. Soviets viewed new ideals as going against the true judgement of Russia (Nahirny, 1962). Within this part of history, it was clear that there was a dire need for a human representative embracing virtue and ideal behaviour. Not one shaped by superficial utopian ideals, but one who could relate to the people in truth. This lionheart would be able to bring the people together under one common enemy. Once again, literature became the birthing place of this fresh hero of Russia (Matthewson, 2000).

Belinsky developed this lionheart. He showed that moving away from Tsarist rule, incorporating new ideas but keeping Russia’s culture was in the people’s best interests. Belinsky did this with the help of realism and truthfulness (Shkolnikov, 2003). Belinsky criticized many works that focused on the superficial and the unrealistic. Belinksy’s Letter to Gogol is a perfect representation of his strong feelings about truth. For years Gogol opposed the evils of serfdom and the Tsarist corruption, however when he published Selected Passages from a Correspondence with Friends, he wrote that his feelings were completely different. Gogol explained that the only reason why Russia was in a turmoil was because of the failings of individuals and the only way to reverse it was to follow the autocratic system (Epstein, 2006). Belinsky’s response, Letter to Gogol was a furious and famous reaction that was dubbed as a landmark of Russian intellectual history that showed the interconnectedness of Westernizing intelligentsia’s beliefs (Raeff, 1966, p.252). This passion is what earned him the nickname, “Furious Vissarion”.  Belinsky was very optimistic concerning the contribution to the revolution. He characterized the Russian movement as always moving up and growing forward. He frequently mentioned that proclaiming the truthfulness is essential to a change (Kliger, 2011). However, this idea of realism and truthfulness was sometimes too much for him. Belinsky wrestled harshly with the fact that truth and moral obligation in Russia did not entirely exist (Matthewson, 2000). Applying his standards to the world around him, he did not always see a land for a good virtuous man to exist within “the poisonous social atmosphere he breathes”. (Matthewson, 2000). Belinsky longed to create a hero because none existed. Belinksy’s lionheart was not a sovereign, a lawmaker or a conqueror. Neither was he a man of genius or supernatural, he would be a representative among equals. He would be not a member of the aristocracy. He would attack the Tsarist regime and protect its victims – serfs and peasants. The lionheart would have a great sense of národnost (Matthewson, 2000). Belinksy is revered as the author of the image of man. Belinsky defines art as revealing the truth, and the artist as a person who embraced this and therefore should be important to society (Fattal, 1973). Belinksy did and still does hold this position within Russia; critics of the 1850s and 1860s were armed with Belinsky’s lionheart and passion for their country. They continued to search for this new hero within.

Sylvia Dobosz

References

Epstein, M. (2006). The Demise of the First Secularization: The Church of Gogol and the Church of Belinsky. Studies in East European Thought, 58(2), 95-105. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20099938

Fattal, R. D. (1973). Russian radical criticism : the socio-political significance of Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. McGill Russian Review, 22(1), 100. doi:10.2307/126609

Gunn, J. (2017). Dostoyevsky: a life of contradiction. Gloucestershire, GL: Amberley Publishing

Hans Kohn. (1955). Vissarion Belinsky, 1811-1848. A Study in the Origins of Social Criticism in Russia. The Russian Review, 14(2), 160-162. doi:10.2307/125577

Kliger, I. (2011). Genre and Actuality in Belinskii, Herzen, and Goncharov: Toward a Genealogy of the Tragic Pattern in Russian Realism. Slavic Review, 70(1), 45-66. doi:10.5612/slavicreview.70.1.0045

Mathewson, R. W. (2000). The positive hero in Russian literature. Evanston, IL: North Western University Press.

Nahirny, V. C. (1962). The Russian Intelligentsia: from Men of Ideas to Men of Convictions*. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 4(04), 403. doi:10.1017/s0010417500001389

Raeff, M. (1966). Russian Intellectual History: An Anthology. New York, NY: Prometheus Books

Randolph, J. (2007). The house in the garden: the Bakunin family and the romance of Russian idealism. Cornell University Press. Retrieved from  http://hdl.handle.net.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/2027/heb.32405.0001.001.

Shkolnikov, V. (2003). Imperial Realism: Belinsky and the Wretched of the Earth. Ulbandus Review, 7, 63- 72. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25748123

Other Relevant Reading

Belinsky, V, G (1847). Letter to Gogol.

Belinsky, V, G. (1948). Selected philosophical works. Belfast: S.L.S. Legal Publications.

Gogol, N. (1847). Selected Passages with Correspondence with Friends.

Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela was born on July 18^th, 1918 in a small village called Mvezo is South Africa. At current time, South Africa was ruled by white colonizers slowly taking over the entire country. His father was the councillor of the village’s chief hence it becomes no surprise that Mandela grows up to become a leader. From a young age, he was a prospect in the village, and the elders were very concerned with him learning the true histories of the atrocities inflicted upon his people by colonizers instead of learning fake history in post secondary institutions.

In 1936, Nelson was forced to flee into another village after white colonizers demanded the village would follow repressive rules. His dad resisted causing them to be forced to leave to another village; again, Mandela’s rebellion comes as no surprise considering his dad was one too.

Mandela started his post secondary education in Clarkebury, earning a three year degree in just two years then getting more education at Heldatown. After studies, he was meant to go back to his village to become chief and submit to his parent’s desire for a pre determined marriage, however he fled to a town at the edge of Johannesburg. When there Mandela started his long career of activism and resistance.

In 1941, Mandela joined the African National Congress (ANC) an antiapartheid organization. This organization main goal was fight back through boycott, strikes, and civil disobedience against the white colonizers to gain political freedom. Mandela was arrested in 1952 and jailed, but he got out of jail after a few months only. He continued his education afterwards to become a graduate lawyer from the university of Witwatersrand. He never stopped his thrive to give speeches about true democracy and freedom. He travelled villages under the threat of imprisonment, being the most influential figure in South African history. He escaped numerous times but was finally arrested but this time under the accusations of treason, and he was sentenced to heavy labor and life in prison. He got out after 27 years. He was offered to come out earlier but in return would stop preaching for his cause but he refused.

And he never stopped, he still went from town to town planning sanctions against South Africa and finally after intense negotiations the ANC and the government reached an agreement to form a transitional government and it finally ended its apartheid. The black people of south Africa were finally allowed to vote, and participate in the political process. In 1994 Mandela was elected President. Mandela’s influence can not be summed up into a 500 word page. Under constant threat of imprisonment and death, he never stopped his cause and spread this fire for resentment in an oppressed nation but knocking from door to door. And yet after he took power, took no revenge or segregated the whites from the blacks, yet he brought unity using Rugby and public speeches. He formed a multiracial South Africa, and his voice of equality, freedom and unity echoed into the world. He brought universal education to South Africa free of race privilege or segregation. His works is a monument and an example that people use to fight racism and segregation till today.

Miguel Elsaid

Relevant readings:

• Long walk to freedom
• Conversations with myself

Work cited

Limb, P. (2009). Nelson Mandela: A Biography. ABC-CLIO, LLC, 71(4).

Williams, M. (2016). Nelson Mandela. Eds.a.ebscohost.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca.