Role of Violence: Specific look in Eastern European Revolutions of 1989

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=240&pictureid=2916

Why were some revolutions in Eastern Europe non-violent and others violent? Around the year 1989, Eastern Europe was being reshaped by numerous revolutions throughout the continent. Majority of these revolutions were nonviolent, yet Romania and Yugoslavia did have violent revolutions. What made them different?

In Yugoslavia, there were many nationalities fighting over one piece of territory. The result was more of a genocide than a revolution.

In Romania, the leader was a heartless man named Ceausescu. His people were violently forced into submission. The violence did not occur in other countries because the communist leaders themselves did not pose such strong physical opposition to the protests. In Poland, there was a sweeping movement, Solidarity that quickly grew in popularity and power. Despite being made illegal, the movement did not die down and overtook the government by winning the seats in the parliament. In Hungary, the leader was already a reformist and was overthrown and replaced by an election. In Czechoslovakia, there was the Velvet Revolution, a peaceful ten-day protest. Why were all these countries so nonviolent? Clearly their leaders were not as iron fisted as Ceausescu in Romania. They were also too confident in their support, and the downfall of communism was a realization of the fact.

In the Egypt Revolution, Mubarak lost the support of the army. With the loss of the army, he lost control over Egypt. In Libya, Gaddafi had control over the army because they were hired by him and would loss their job if they did not do as he wished. The result was that Egypt's Revolution was much less violent than the Libya's Revolution. These further exemplify how the stance of the country's army affect the overall violence of the revolution.

Khomeini versus Gandhi

Two of the most earthshaking leaders, Khomeini and Gandhi, had diametrically opposed views on revolution. While Khomeini was all about war, Gandhi was all about non-violence. While Khomeini was supporting the US Embassy hostage crisis, Gandhi led the Salt March. Khomeini was all about one religion, Islam, while Gandhi was advocating for peace and unity between the hindus and the muslims in India. How can two such different people both be the faces of revolution? Is it the country that makes the difference between violence and nonviolence, Khomeini and Gandhi? Religion played a large role in the Iranian Revolution, part by Islam being such a large part of the people's lives and part by the emphasis Khomeini put on religion. They began their revolution like a jihad, or holy struggle (yet commonly associated with violence). In India, human rights and equality were the motivating factors, and the means to achieve them was through satyagraha. Would satyagraha have worked in Iran? It is not likely that a peaceful uprising would be developed in a country already ruled by terror. Could a Khomeini-like figure have succeeded in India? Violence seems to be the human instinct during a revolution and there was undoubtably violent acts during the Indian Revolution. It is more common for a revolution to be led by a "Khomeini" than by a "Gandhi."


http://www.nndb.com/people/915/000031822/khomeini2-sized.jpg
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/gandhi.jpg

Khomeini versus Gandhi

http://www.nndb.com/people/915/000031822/khomeini2-sized.jpg

http://gandhicola.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/gandhi1.jpg

Two of the most earthshaking leaders, Khomeini and Gandhi, had diametrically opposed views on revolution. While Khomeini was all about war, Gandhi was all about non-violence. While Khomeini was supporting the US Embassy hostage crisis, Gandhi led the Salt March. Khomeini was all about one religion, Islam, while Gandhi was advocating for peace and unity between the hindus and the muslims in India. How can two such different people both be the faces of revolution? Is it the country that makes the difference between violence and nonviolence, Khomeini and Gandhi? Religion played a large role in the Iranian Revolution, part by Islam being such a large part of the people's lives and part by the emphasis Khomeini put on religion. They began their revolution like a jihad, or holy struggle (yet commonly associated with violence). In India, human rights and equality were the motivating factors, and the means to achieve them was through satyagraha. Would satyagraha have worked in Iran? It is not likely that a peaceful uprising would be developed in a country already ruled by terror. Could a Khomeini-like figure have succeeded in India? Violence seems to be the human instinct during a revolution and there was undoubtably violent acts during the Indian Revolution. It is more common for a revolution to be led by a "Khomeini" than by a "Gandhi."

Iranian Revolution and Egyptian Revolution: Leader versus Technology

http://shahriarshahabi.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/iran_revolution_1979.jpg

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheTbwwyLsUmPylxe31BReHjLw0XVKER7DUiGfK59G7S6Ze6GfTrttAucdgLLTsvI9EFXVXUUYJtnsp136-bkS6rz0az1kyicshPfj4u21GQaOF83zS76t88LLZyqlMleme5Ni6yTlviw0/s1600/Facebook+Internet+Egypt+Revolution.jpg

The Iranian Revolution had a clear leader in the figure of Ayatollah Khomeini. However, in the recent Egyptian Revolution, there was really no one apparent leader. Why is that? Though there are other factors contributing to the difference, a major change was the technology and its role in the revolution.

Preceding the Egyptian Revolution, Tunisia experienced a surprisingly rapid development of a revolution. Many people attributed the speed to "Facebook," which gave the youth a forum to discuss, motivate and share ideas, leading the the organization and instant unity of the people and information. In both the Iranian revolution and Egyptian Revolutions, the youth were highly involved. The takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Iran was primarily a student-led movement, where they took many American hostages. In Egypt, one of the main motivations for the revolution was the unemployment rate for the youth. Thus, the youth are taking advantage of the new technology, including forums such as Facebook to organize their rebellion.

In Iran, Khomeini also used the technology of his time to keep the revolutionary fervor alive during his exile. With people listening to his cassette tapes, his power became supreme and his ideas became the vision of the nation. Now however, in 2011, Egypt did not even need one man to unite the country and reign with one supreme vision to overthrow their government. Although there were some leaders, there was no "Khomeini" of the Egyptian Revolution. Could technology like Facebook take the place of revolutionary leaders like L'overture, Gandhi, Stalin, Mao and Khomeini? The real question is if people can organize themselves and keep a movement alive without a head or symbol that a one man leader provides. By the evidence of the recent Tunisian and Egyptian revolution, the answer seems to be a yes.

Mao and Stalin: Leaders in the Pursuit of Socialism

http://www.ministryoftofu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/mao01jpg.jpeg
http://peterkc.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/stalin_victory.jpg

Mao, leader and founder of the People's Republic of China, and Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union of Russia, were two powerful leaders with a goal of making his nation a model of socialism. Though they both were greatly influenced by Marxism, they both added a personal twist to his original theory. In the Soviet Union, Stalin with his Five-year Plan, forced the nation to industrialize in an impossible rapid pace. Strict interpretations of Marxism suggest that Socialism is a stage that may only happen after the stage of Feudalism is overtaken by Capitalism. No stage can be missed in the process. Is it possible to skip a stage in this process successfully? However, Stalin created the Five-year Plan in an attempt to jumpstart a nation from Feudalism straight into Socialism. Russia had only abolished serfdom about eighty years before, but had not yet embraced or developed into Capitalism. Also, following Lenin's lead, he ruled with an small elite class, not using the power of the proletariat as Marx idealized.

Mao, on the other hand, received all his power from peasants and his support of peasants was strong. Unlike strict interpretations of Marxism, Mao looked to the masses of peasants rather than the middle working class. China's working class at the time was small, but rather than industrializing as Stalin had, using Britain as a model, Mao sought to create small work places everywhere and mobilize the people. China had looked to the Soviet Union for support and as a model of socialism and the transition. However, Mao's Great Leap forward destroyed that link, as the Russians criticized the policy. Mao saw Russia as imperialists and Russia saw him as a "modern revisionist," (McKay 984) who strayed from true Marxism.

They both used propaganda and fear to transition into socialism. Marx wrote that violence and fear is necessary during the transition from Capitalism to Socialism. Is it possible without propaganda? Both Mao and Stalin turned into "gods" of his nation, leading the people to the golden place of socialism. They bombarded the public with propaganda, in an attempt to brainwash all the people. Rather then achieving Socialism, both became intoxicated with his own power and caused the death of thousands of their people, without remorse. Is it possible to achieve Socialism without one strong leader? Can the proletariats rise up and make the transition themselves, violent or not? In both cases, the transition was not in the hands of the proletariat as Marx wrote it should be. For Russia, it was a small elite, and for China, their large masses of peasants. Neither stayed true to the socialism that Marx created, but is there a country ever ready to follow the strict interpretation of Marxist socialism?

Indian Revolution: Satyagraha

http://www.infowars.com/images/salt2.jpg

Mahatma Gandhi, through satyagraha, experimented with peaceful means of fighting for civil rights, discovering the strength of nonviolence. Satyagraha was the nonviolent, yet active path of civil disobedience against unjust oppression by making the evil side aware of its fault. When would satyagraha be used? Gandhi stressed that only as a last resort should the strong weapon of satyagraha be wielded for the cause. The cause had to be worthy of it, and the people worthy of committing to it. Gandhi's strategic use of satyagraha made the world aware of India's struggle against Britain, which by threatening to tarnish Britain's reputation, achieved success. Would satyagraha work in other countries and other time periods? Although Gandhi's nonviolence was not always followed during his lifetime, Gandhi was a model for many future civil rights leaders. Martin Luther King JR., for example is a man who spoke of his admiration for Gandhi. He, with peaceful protests and boycotts, succeeded in helping the black community gain equal rights. Not only did Gandhi's use of satyagraha liberate India, but provided a blueprint for other civil rights movements and immortalizes him as one of the greatest and most influential leaders of the world.

Thoughts on Egyptian Revolution 2011

http://totallycoolpix.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/28012011_egypte_riots/egypte_100.jpg


The tumult of events in Egypt over the past few weeks caught the attention of the whole world. Being one of the only allies the United States has in the Middle East, Egypt is a major concern. This revolution is an interesting movement, largely affected by outside forces. Many times throughout history, revolution happens like a chain reaction. This revolution is an example of that. After the overthrowing of Tunisia's president, the spirit of revolution made its way to Egypt, where it became fortified with demonstrations and protests. If Tunasia's president was not overthrown, would the people of Egypt had the inspiration to revolt themselves? Would there have been a revolution?
Many times, outside forces play a large role in the path of a revolution. The United States and other countries anxiously watching Egypt, wondering whether or not to intervene, and hoping the results will play out to their own interest. If the French had not aided the British colonies in America, would the United States exist today? Would the Haitian Revolution turned out differently if the Spanish and English were not involved?
Undoubtably, revolutions are largely influenced by outside forces, whether it is the advancing technology, new and foreign ideas, pivotal events occurring in other nations, or in some cases, outright intervention.

Industrial Revolution's Contribution to the Modern Western World

http://www.antique-pocket-watch.com/image-files/factory_appleton1_1.jpghttp://www.yourlocalweb.co.uk/images/pictures/08/12/factory-pumping-out-pollution-79454.jpg
http://www.yourlocalweb.co.uk/images/pictures/08/12/factory-pumping-out-pollution-79454.jpg


The Industrial Revolution was one of the most pivotal times in history that continues to shape the world today in very obvious ways. Great Britain first cleared the path to an industrialized society, but the whole world soon followed in their footsteps. Today, historians still look at them as a model of how a country industrialized as the trend continues with other countries. The Industrial Revolution, starting around the mid-eighteenth century, and gave birth to many ideas that are still considered "modern" today.

The Industrial Revolution began the idea of "going to work," and having set hours for a job. The grueling hours of factory labor were difficult, but taught people discipline and work ethic. They began forming standards and implementing rules for the workplace. They were harsh, but the people were not accustomed to any restrictions. The majority of the population were previously farmers or served as house maids. Today, these standards are sometimes not stated as explicitly, but always understood. The discipline at the workplace has been popularized into common knowledge. It is understood that a person cannot be repeatedly late for work, nor may they use the bathroom wherever they please. These rules and regulation stem from the factories of the Industrial Revolution which clearly stated them for the first time and enforced them. How much of the modern day society was born out of the Industrial Revolution's factories? How has work ethic evolved (immigrant work ethic, modern day westerner work ethic, Third World countries work ethic, etc.)? Work ethic seems to be driven by money and a higher standard of living. For instance, the immigrant work ethic is strong and determined, making themselves out of nothing. They embody Smiles' idea that an individual's success and poverty is solely their doing. Bits and pieces of the work ethic from the Industrial Revolution can be found in today's working class.

The idea of innovative machines doing jobs also had a jumpstart during the Industrial Revolution. Previously, inventions were very seldom (compared to now), and the progress with technology was slow. First with the spinning jenny, to the water frame and to the steam engine, the change and technological advances moved rapidly. Today, with cellphones to laptops, many advances are being made, and technology is always improving. It is as if the initial push during the Industrial Revolution never slowed, but continues to pick up speed. Is modern society making more progress than before? What defines progress? Progress can be in the mind, as it was in the Enlightenment, or with machines, as seen in the Industrial Revolution. Today, the progress made is both mental and manifests itself more concretely in machines and new inventions. Although the technology is advancing more rapidly than ever before, it would not be correct to say the society is advancing more than periods such as the Industrial Revolution. They were the ones to "unlock" the door to innovation and set the standards for modern times. Without Great Britain's breakthrough, the modern world would not have been born. But was the Industrial Revolution inevitable? Would it have happened somewhere else if it were not for Great Britain? Great Britain had all the financial means and all the resources for the Industrial Revolution, and to this day, serves as the perfect model for any country hoping the industrialize.