The Power of Non-Violence

Although current society is very violence based, over the past two decades peaceful revolutions have successfully taken place. From 1983-1986, the People Power Revolution took place in the Philippines. Much of the people’s anger was due to the corrupt dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. Although Marcos was not technically a dictator, in 1972 he declared martial law, (which let him run for a third term as president), giving him complete control of the military and the ability to suppress freedom of speech, press, etc. Not only was the government oppressive, but the Philippine economy was also tanking. After blatantly rigged elections, the Filipinos’ anger grew and after a few events, millions of Filipinos flocked to EDSA (a central highway in the Philippines, the revolution is often referred to as the EDSA revolution). Within a few days, Marcos was forced to resign and overtime democracy was restored.
Along the same lines as the People Power Revolution, the Revolutions of 1989 were non-violent (with exception of Romania). Many scholars believe that the People Power Revolution could have inspired the non-violence of the 1989 Revolutions. Despite the case, both the Philippines and the Soviet Union shared similar problems. The Soviets had faced years of oppression and a fluctuating economy. In the years leading up to the revolution many Soviet leaders passed reforms, but the legitimacy of the government was tainted. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became the head of the Soviet Union and initiated many policies such as glasnost and perestroika. His policies were liberating, and in a famous speech Gorbachev swore he wouldn’t intervene in the affairs of other Soviet nations. Alongside Gorbachev, the power of Solidarity grew, and was legalized in Poland. In a shocking election Solidarity candidate took almost all of the seats in the government, making the first revolution successful. Revolutions in Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria followed – all peacefully. In both the People Power Revolution and the 1989 Revolution, there was a general discontent among all types of people and their sheer numbers were too much of a force to put down.
The most recent peaceful revolution occurred in Egypt earlier this year. Discontent about large- scale unemployment rose, along with anger about the oppressiveness of the government. Because many young Egyptians are well educated, they were aware of the outside world and of the corruption in their government. Inspired by a revolution in Tunisia, on January 25, 2011 protests erupted through out the country. In the following weeks, millions of people gathered to protest and eventually the military refused to suppress the crowds. Like the People Power Revolution and the 1989 Revolutions, mass numbers of dissatisfied people overwhelmed their governments. All the people in each country unified and protested for one common cause – freedom.

Iran, "An Island of Stability"?

While major unrest consumes the Middle East, Iran has seemed to fade into the background. Preceding the revolutions in the Middle East, Iranians disputed over the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the 2009 presidential election, moderate Mir Hussein Moussavi and extreme Islamist Ahmadeinejad ran against each other, but Ahmadeinejad won by a large amount, making people question the legitimacy of the election. More people allegedly voted for Ahmadinejad than there were people to vote. The Guardian Council viewed the decision, but they largely disregarded it, leaving Ahmadeinejad president.
Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has been largely divided by moderate and extreme views on governing, thus causing conflict. Some people support Ahmandinejad for his pro-Islamic policies and nuclear development. Others believe his government parties are corrupt and his religious policies can be detrimental to the country. Many of the same issues that were present during the 1979 revolution, still plague Iran. With constant instability in Iran, a revolution is bound to occur again, especially with the influence of other Middle Eastern countries.
On February 14, 2011, protesters in Tehran gathered to offer their support to Tunisia and Egypt. Armed riot guards violently suppressed the protests. Many Islamic leaders believed the revolutions are beneficial to the Islamic government because the revolutions overthrew secular, not religious leaders. But, they also overthrew oppressive governments with poorly planned economies, like Iran. While a revolution may not be in the near future for Iran, eventually one will occur to overthrow tyrannical Iranian government.

Can Collectivism Work?

In large, communism promotes equality and codependence with one’s government and fellow countrymen, thus making it a cornerstone of communist ideology. Collectivism is any type of philosophy or method that encourages interdependence within a group and allows individuals to build off of one another in order to reach a common goal. In communist China, Mao Zedong used collectivism in the form of agriculture. After 1949, Mao and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) created communes, which bound people together by combining farms. People worked side-by-side in large fields, in hopes of creating more crops. In China’s case, collectivism was a complete failure. It encouraged laziness, and eventually caused widespread famine and death. Collectivism was part of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, in which about 20 million people perished, largely due to famine and drought. In the Soviet Union, Stalin also promoted collectivism, and in the Ukraine’s case about 6 million people died due to famine. In addition to being present in the Soviet Union and China, agricultural collectivism was implemented during the Cambodian Revolution (1975-1979) by Pol Pot. Like in the Soviet Union and China, collectivism caused the death of millions and greatly damaged society.
Although seemingly detrimental, collectivism is a large part of Western Society today. Collectivism is seen in welfare, where (largely through) tax redistribution; the government helps those who make a certain income attain food, and other necessities. Furthermore, trade unions have many collective characteristics, such as collective bargaining, where employers and employees can openly negotiate. Also, those in trade unions, receive various benefits also included in taxes. Another example of collectivism in many societies is universal health care. Similar to welfare, with universal healthcare, those who can afford healthcare are provided it through tax redistribution.
Welfare can often be a topic of dispute, especially in places like Ireland (welfare is called the dole) where one can be on it for life. Like in China, knowing one can slide by; by doing the bare minimum is often a counter motivator. This is also a large part of the dispute with health care. Those whose taxes would help pay for healthcare believe that they worked hard for their money, and therefore they deserve it, not people who they assume don’t work as hard. Collectivism has the ability to fuse a society together through relationships, but it also has the power to tear people apart. The only way collectivism can be flawlessly successful is if everyone works equally hard, thus alleviating any tensions. In a society like the present, it is very hard to say that collectivism can ever be fully triumphant.

Gandhi's Policies in the Middle East

Although Mahatma Gandhi is famous for his revolutionary peaceful protests, his methods have not always been successful. In India, where Gandhi began his civil disobedience campaigns, his anti-violence strategies often fell to pieces, as tensions grew and violence erupted. In many ways Gandhi was not fully responsible for India’s freedom – World War II largely enabled it. Despite his lack of triumph, Gandhi is still an inspirational figure, who has influenced numerous leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr. In King’s case, he led the Civil Rights Movement through non-violent campaigns and ultimately achieved equality for all people. If Gandhi’s techniques worked for King, then they should be able to apply to various types of situations. Unfortunately, the world seems to thrive on violence; there is agitation, anger, and age-old disputes everywhere, and peace is often hard to achieve.
Recently, throughout the Middle East, numerous protests for freedom have erupted. Some have been violent, and others have been fairly peaceful, and because of this there is potential for Gandhi’s ways to work anywhere as long as specific conditions are present. The protests began in Tunisia, where a fruit vendor, Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire. Ferment seemed to break out immediately as years of anger over oppression, inflation, and other issues bubbled over. In Tunisia’s case, violence was probably inevitable to achieve freedom because Tunisia is a very small country and therefore does not have the amount of people to band together and peacefully protest. Following Tunisia, the revolution spread to Egypt. Egyptians were able to overthrow their president Hosni Mubarak in a fairly peaceful manner. The Internet played a huge role in Egypt’s revolution (and Tunisia’s) because it helped recruit and “fire up” masses of people, who where willing to stand up together. In many ways the young people lead the revolution because there was so much unused young talent in Egypt, with a 35% unemployment rate. Another vital factor to Egypt’s peaceful victory was the army’s refusal to shoot the protesters. With a disobedient army, violence isn’t really necessary for the people.
Another place where revolution has erupted is in Syria. So far, Syrian protests have been fairly mellow, but it might be hard to keep them that way. Like in Gandhi’s case, religion plays a huge part in its ability to remain peaceful. Syria included two types of Muslims Sunni and Shi’a, and while it is mostly Sunni, tensions often build between the two groups. As seen with Gandhi, violence often broke out between Muslims and Hindus, causing Gandhi to call off his campaigns. If the Shi’as and Sunnis are able to stay united, and more people come out to protest, Syria’s revolution can stay peaceful. In addition to Syria, a revolution is taking place in Libya. There has been quite a bit of sadism in Libya for a few reasons. The rebel ‘army” is fairly small and is estimated to be somewhere around 1,500 people. When a group is so small it’s very challenging to keep the peace because the leader (in this case president Muammar Gaddafi) is easily able to shoot the protesters down. The probability of a peaceful revolution occurring in Libya is extremely low because there is not extreme anger and dissatisfaction amongst a large group of people like in Egypt’s or even India’s case.
Although the Middle East has been plagued with violence for an extremely long time, Gandhi’s cordial methods can work anywhere with the right factors. The most essential ingredient for a peaceful protest is widespread anger, because only then will people be willing to stand up for their government as one mass. Unity is an integral part of ever completing a successful revolution, so as long as the Middle East countries say strong and together, Gandhi’s methods may just be victorious.

Revolutionaries Protest, but not for Communism

Throughout The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels try to inspire revolutionary fervor in the “proletarians,” or the working class. The closing sentences of the novel inspire the proletarians to rise up, “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKINGMEN OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE!” (116). These last few lines have influenced and inspired many revolutionaries, and they might have impacted revolutionaries in present day Egypt. For the past few weeks, Egyptians have been rising up against their government and especially their leader Mubarak. Unlike how Marx and Engels urge Proletarians to initiate communism, the people of Egypt are protesting the oppressive government and are pushing for a democracy.
There are many apparent causes to the Egyptian Revolution, such as inflation in food prices, large economic trouble, built up anger and oppression, and the revolution in Tunisia also served as a catalyst in the Egyptian Revolution. So far the Egyptian revolution is not rooted in social issues, in fact many classes stand together protesting the government. Most Egyptians want a new government where than can have freedom of speech and independence. Further, Egyptians are not being oppressed by the “Bourgeoisie,” (like Marx and Engels predicted) rather they are being tyrannized by their own government, the exact same people who might control a communistic society.
While the revolution in Egypt has united many people, it is unsure what will result if their revolution is unsuccessful or successful. In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels write, “Does it require deep intuitions to comprehend that man’s ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations in his social life?” (91). Marx and Engels were trying to say that a person’s view on life changes depending on what they have or don’t have, what the state of their society is, and perhaps even on their age and ability; people are moldable. Therefore, if the Egyptians get what they want (a democracy), there is no telling what might happen. A class conflict could emerge, as rebels try to claim power, or wealthy citizens, Furthermore, with a revolutions comes conflicting ideals, therefore a clash of ideas about democracy could create more turmoil for a long time to come. With the uncertainty about Egypt’s fate, many countries, including America, are afraid to intervene or tell the people what to do. Marx and Engels were right that history goes in cycles, yet it is very unpredictable what will happen in Egypt.

Just Smile

When someone asks for our advice, we often relate to our own past experiences, while we should be trying to imagine ourselves in his/her situation. While Samuel Smiles's hard work and dedication payed off in his own life, in his book Self-Help Smiles therefore generalizes that if one works hard then one will reap the rewards. In 1882 when Smiles published his Self- Help book, society was far different from present day western civilization. During Smiles's era, it was extremely difficult to progress from one class to another, and often one's success was limited based on what class one was in. Thus a factory worker during the industrial revolution, who worked thirteen hour days in intense conditions, would probably never reach success because he/she was in a lower class. Unlike today in America where immigrants come over and work hard at any job they can find, in order to better their children's life, in 1882 a factory worker's child had a very low chance of becoming prosperous. In fact the children often worked in factories along side their parents, and continued to do so for the rest of their lives. Hard work was meant to keep one alive, not to succeed.
Smiles also forgot that there are various circumstances which inhibit success, not only in 1882, but also currently. Smiles blamed, "selfishness, idleness, and vice" for "national decay," but in reality there are many factors which might cause one to fail. Smiles was very well educated, so when his father passed away and left Smiles, his mother, and ten siblings behind, Smiles already had a good foundation to begin to look for work. In 1882, many people were not well educated because often times, children had to drop out of school at young ages to work, therefore continuing a cycle of "failure". Only the wealthy class truly had an opportunity to be successful because they were well educated, connected, and respected, unlike the poor who were looked down upon and scorned. The saying, "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" is very relevant to the situation in 1882, where people stayed in their current classes and didn't regress or progress. Although during Smile's time most obstacles were derived from class issues, in current society there are many things that can keep one from succeeding. Perhaps, the career one picks might be inhibiting, like an actress who works day and night waitressing and performing, but never getting a big break. Or perhaps and entrepreneur, who spends his/her time devoting themselves to business, but a bad economy hits, and in seconds their company is destroyed.
In many ways Smiles is correct about hard work; it is a key ingredient for success, but sometimes luck can play a big role. While Smiles was trying to help people, he based his book solely on his own experiences, therefore making his seem judgemental and in some cases completely wrong. Smiles's often looks down as the lower classes, blaming them for all of their misfortune, while he (his class) is indirectly responsible for their failures. Smiles book is more relatable in current society, but it is also too generalized and personal, rather than factual and understanding.