Gorbachev

Personally, I feel kind of ambiguous about Gorbachev. I think that the book didn't go into enough detail about him to really pass a judgement, yet I also noted a certain tilt to his actions. When the book mentioned that Gorbachev was a political manuevering genius, I would say that it was understating things. Considering that Gorbachev was allowing free criticism of Soviet policies (thus inciting discontent and possibly revolt as people realize how many share their opinions), it is impressive how long he held power for. Neither the old gaurd nor the revolutionists who wanted to do away with Communism were happy with his policies. Gorbachev walked a middle ground that really just made everyone angry with him, yet he managed to hold power long enough to dismantle communism. Whether or not that was his intention, his uncanny ability to keep all parties hoping for change while playing to his own agenda served him well.

Compare the contrast the Soviet regime with the Italian and German regimes.

Compare the contrast the Soviet regime with the Italian and German regimes.

I think it's pretty funny to look at the Soviet, Italian, and German dictatorships without checking myself for pro-democracy indoctrination and go "wow, they had tons in common, they were all so evil! I wonder why they didn't get along!?" But, with that aside, while the Soviet, German, and Italian regimes all had their similarities (attempt at total control), they were greatly different. In Soviet Russia, totalitarian dictatorship was a means to an end, an unhappy stepping stone on the way to proletariat (or peasant, whatever it was in Russia) self-governance and popular control of national industry. In both Germany and Italy totalitarianism was the end. Both regimes accepted (in their minds) that, in order to live to the fullest, the popular "sheep" had to be dominated by a few wolves, and thus decided on totalitarianism till the bitter end. Even there, however, the German and Italian regimes had inherent differences because, as Fascist governments, they were based intensely on nationalism. And since the manifestation of nationalism is radically different from country to country, the regimes themselves stood for different things.

What kinds of comparisons can you draw between secessionists in North America and nationalists in Europe?

The secessionists in North America and the nationalists in Europe actually shared quite a few desires and motivations. But for the fact that we (as US citizens) view the South's secession from the Union with a nationalistic surprise, the South's movement for independence is no different from the various entities of Germany in 1848, trying to make it their own way in Europe. Around the time of the civil war, the United States as a nation state (the one we all love dearly today) did not exist as strongly as the individual political, economical, and cultural interests of the various states. The South had a system of life that was very different from the North because of the virtually free labor-based plantations. As the North continued to gain diversity from the various immigrants, the South had very few free workers, since none could hope to compete with slave labor. The South developed the independent cultural identity that fired up all the nationalistic urges in Europe, and they acted on those interests by seceding from the Union.

Was the 1848 revolution in Paris a proletarian revolution?

Marx himself and Marxist historians argue the 1848 revolution in Paris was a proletarian revolution. Was it? Was there a working class movement in France in 1848?

I would say that the 1848 revolution in France was definitely a proletarian revolution, but it was not the global proletarian coup de etat or the working classes easy take-over of centralized management. The 1848 revolution was, after all, a class war to an extent, and when the working men and women take up arms against their bourgeoisie oppressors, I would certainly say that there is a proletarian uprising. As to a working class movement, there were definitely elements within the rebellious factions that were fighting/rioting with a pro-working class agenda, but I think that in the end, any working class movement was mainly in the minds of the rank and file of the revolution. As always, it was primarily the laborers that did the fighting but the professionals and intellectuals that did most of the deliberating afterwards. The initial radicalism of the revolution got watered down after the overly-romantic period wore off, and once again the business of actually writing a constitution that provides liberty, justice, and happiness proved to be a little difficult.

What was so "revolutionary" about the Industrial Revolution?

Today, we measure a country's progress and value to the world economy in general in part by its level of industrialization, because in today's world it is very difficult for a nation to ensure the quality of life for its citizens that an industrialized country can provide. The Industrial Revolution itself was not revolutionary in the sense of BAM! Modern Progress! but more in the sense that it was a breaking out (albeit over time) from the older, accepted modes of production to the mechanized version which moved the world further down the path of consumptive leisure (meaning that we spend our leisure time using things others produce as opposed to finding something free to do), which is a necessary part of a capitalistic world. The dramatic change occurred when the world moved away from domestic production to making things with machines. Which, considering the moral dilemmas managers must have faced (or at least been presented with by established institutions), was pretty revolutionary.

Napoleon's Empire V. Earlier Universal Monarchy bids (late)

Think back to Spain and France's earlier attempts at a universal monarchy. How do they compare to Napoleon's Grand Empire?

I think the key difference between the earlier bids for European supremacy and Napoleon's empire are in the fact that much of Napoleon's empire consisted of allied states that were not completely under the French heel. Granted, Napoleon could force all the countries within the empire (not counting Russia as a part of the empire) to act/not act, but much of the states that Napoleon had conquered were still allowed some semblance of self-government. I think a large reason that Napoleon was so able to control such a portion of Europe (i.e. most of it) was because he left this illusion of some self-government. It may have been the state of politics in his age, but for whatever the reason, strong political figures in many countries (tied, in essence, to whatever bit of Volksgeist the country had) were left with some power. I believe that this "delegation" of power, versus the earlier attempts at total control/domination, made Napoleon's empire more stable. The way I see it, the larger the area controlled, the greater the diversity of the population. With population diversity comes a differentiation of desires, and it is desires the deviate from the intentions of authority that cause problems. Napoleon was able to spread his control out across leaders who identified with their countries, where the earlier French and Habsburg reaches did not.

Euro History in the Comics

Salon Response

In advance of reflecting upon the recent gathering of personages, I must first express my gratitude to our hostess, Lady Isikdag, who so graciously provided sustenance.
I found the discussion to be most lively, and the company to be impressive. Some presences seemed to fill the room with their expanse of thought (and indeed, Voltaire seemed much more that one man in person). I enjoyed most keenly my discussions with Mr.s Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Pain, and their opinions on ethical guidelines with which to conduct one's life were most interesting, even if they were not in alignment with my own. On a further note, I found my discussion of a free global market with Mr. Adam Smith to contain many intriguing prospects. In total, I found the Salon to be an intellectual explosion of ideas, and occasionally humor. That silly Rousseau and his abandoned children!
Many Thanks for an Excellent Discussion,
Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant

Greetings,


I am Immanuel Kant, esteemed philosopher hailing from the Prussian City of Konigsberg. In my lifetime, I wrote such works on reasoning, religion, and ethics as Lectures on Ethics, Critique of Practical Reason, Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, and Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. With the thoughts contained within these writings, I have been a key influence on most philosophical movements since my time. The latter writing, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, is a statement that can be summed up in my ethical theory. My ethics of human behavior are based off of the principle of the categorical imperative, a rule that human action must satisfy in order to be ethical and thus “good”. Human actions should be first and foremost designed to promote the good and happiness of others and themselves, but the imperative can be considered an ethical law that must be followed. The end is not so important as the means, for how can anyone be good if not through good intentions? My ethical theories have been used, in conjunction with Utilitarianism and the theories other select thinkers (Ross), as guidelines for ethical decisions in medical situations.
I have spent all my life in my home city, as I have never been an overly “healthy’ individual. But the thinking and reflection I have performed I would deem most adequate to a healthy mind. In example, I would consider myself a deist in the sense that I have concluded that a God must exist. For, even if you can scientifically trace effect and cause back to the origin of the universe, where did this original cause stem from? The only conclusion can be the presence of some higher power, a good and benevolent God. I do not care what God is like, only that there is a higher power that drives and judges human actions. If there is no God, the intentions of society would be without guidance, without a moral compass, and ultimate cause would have no origin. I must, therefore, believe in the existence of a deity.
On that note, I must say that I look forward to making the acquaintance of you, my esteemed colleagues, and engaging in enlightening conversation on other pivotal topics.

Immanuel Kant

Service mentality in Russia and Prussia

Both the Prussian kings and Peter the Great tried to create a service nobility and a service mentality. Why? How successful were they in achieving their goals?

First off, I think the attempt to create a service nobility is merely part of the main movement towards a service mentality in a country. A service mentality (as the name suggests) makes it easier for the government to rule. Any military, in order to be successful, must be an efficient decision-making machine, where any decision made above is followed immediately and without question by those below. This makes for very effective legislation and a general malleability of society. The Prussian kings and Peter the Great undoubtedly saw a service mentality among the populace as the easiest path to their view of world rule, and thus pursued it. As to how successful they were, both parties were able to make the military (and service) a key part of society. But, it is very difficult, without an enormous amount of influence and control, to create a completely tiered society, be it because people are too widely spread or resistant factions. The best the Prussian kings and Pete were able to do was the make military service the respectable thing to do.

What factors most likely account for the West gaining global ascendancy?

I think the most important factor in Europe's dominant global influence is the deep-seated desire for progress found so strongly in Europe. Other nations had no lack of technological, cultural, and moral progress, but Europeans always seem to be the first on the list when it comes to perfecting guns, making better slaver ships, and trying to find more ways to make themselves money. Maybe it’s not a need for progress, maybe its some kind of genetic desire for laziness, an innate disposition towards anything that makes their life easier. The Incas and the Maya, from what I have seen, had thriving civilizations that did not move towards new ways to avoid doing something themselves, whether by paying someone else to do it or finding a way to make it happen at the push of a button. Whatever this underlying feeling was, it was what drove Western merchants and patriots to other continents. Once there they attempted to westernize the area to make them compatible with the flow of money and ideas. And thus, through force and corruption, the Western way became the worldly way.

Prompt 3

I think there are a variety of things that Spain could have had to do to keep it's power from falling away with changing times. In the late 16th century, when much of Europe was or already had come to terms with the two different lines of Christian faith, much of Spain's religious structure (and cultural structure) was built around the Inquisition. A lot of energy was put into resisting a minority, and trying to supress a minority is always innefficient. Spain was already suffering from depopulation when the hundreds of thousands of Moriscos were driven from Spanish land. Spain lost valuable and essential elements of their workforce to religious bigotry.
While England essentially had the same religious intolerance policy-just in the opposite camp-as Spain, England also had a sense of national unity that was not just centered around their religion, it was centered around their country. The only element of Spanish unity was the Catholic Church, but the Inquisition in Spain was a big part of the Catholic Church. With a common ground so centered around total rejection of all other elements of Christianity, to the point of forcibly moving population, Spain went into decline once its "tolerance" level fell behind the curve. With a little more of an open mind, or an earlier shift away from the harsher sides of the Inquisition, Spain might have found more common ground as a nation.