Gorbachev allowed, but did not ignite, the Revolutions of 1989

I believe that Gorbachev played a vital role in the occurrence of the 1989 revolutions, but his role was limited to allowing the revolutions to happen, rather than starting them. My main argument is that the people would have rebelled earlier, if not for the staunch no-tolerance policies of Stalin and Brezhnev. Without a more tolerant leader like Gorbachev, these revolutions never have been given the opportunity to manifest.

Under Stalin's five year plans, Soviet Union individuals experienced no increase in their quality of life, even though the nation as a whole was getting richer (910). If the people under Stalin had a low quality of life, and were given no freedoms under an oppressive government, why didn't they protest and rebel? One reason: because Stalin did not allow the people to protest. He immediately stifled any threats to his power, and as a result, the fear that he created effectively caused little public opposition to his regime. In other words, people were forced, by their fear, to follow him.

After Stalin's death and from 1953-1964, Kruschev assumed the role of leader of the USSR. Kruschev, unlike Stalin, allowed free speech and allowed people to rebel---to an extent. As a result of this, the people's unhappiness (as a result of low quality of life and lack of freedoms) manifested in rebellions in Poland and Hungary. One can see in Kruschev's rule how a leader's tolerance for opposition directly leads to the degree of rebellion. Kruschev allowed a little bit of 'wiggle room' for the protestors, and as a result this fermented protests.

However, Kruschev was quickly replaced by Brezhnev and his much more oppressive regime. Under Brezhnev, the people's quality of living was no worst than under Kruschev's, the only difference is that they experienced less freedom to protest. Under Brezhnev, the only public opposition to his regime came in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Under Kruschev or Gorbachev, this protest movement might have gained momentum and might have spiraled into a revolution in 1968; however, Brezhnev quickly invaded Czechoslovakia to halt any proceedings.

Finally, when Gorbachev replaced Brezhnev in the 1980s, he again allowed freedoms of speech. Suddenly, the people's unhappiness, which had been in place since Stalin, was allowed to manifest into open protest and subsequently revolution. The main reason why the 1989 revolutions occurred is not because there was a sudden change in attitude in 1989; it was because Gorbachev ALLOWED them to occur. The main point about all of this is that if the people had a chance in the 1960s to rebel, which would have occurred potentially if Kruschev had never left office, the people would have publicly protested and probably would have ignited rebellions. Throughout Stalins rule and through to Gorbachev's rule, the people held basically the same attitude: they were unhappy because they were poor and they had little freedom. Naturally, people would protest given this situation; it is just a matter of how tolerant the leader is in allowing protest. Under Stalin, the oppressed and poor people would definitely have liked to remove Stalin from power, but their fear and Stalin's terror prevented them from doing so. The reason why the 1989 revolutions happened at the time they did is because Gorbachev gave them the means to do so.

Predicting the Egyptian Revolution

The Iranian Revolution ultimately resulted in a conservative government being installed. A dislike for the Shah and a desire to unseat him initially united the people of Iran, but that is where the shared viewpoint ends. After the Shah left Iran in 1979, Iran was deeply divided on how to manage the vacated government. There was a prolonged conflict between the People's Mujahideen (liberal communists: desired a secular government), Moderates (middle: desired a government with Islamic influence but democratic) and the Conservatives (desired a pure theocracy). However, by the end of 1979, Khomeini (leader of the conservatives) had seized complete power for life, and thus, created an Islamic Republic that is still the current government of Modern Iran.

Many experts compare the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. I am not writing to compare the two revolutions, but I wish to share a prediction concerning the outcome of the ongoing Egyptian Revolution. I predict that the Egyptian Revolution will not result in a theocracy like the Iranian Revolution, but it will ultimately lead to a moderate government. I make this prediction based on the evidence of one article I read that examined the role of Sunnis versus Shiites on the results of the Iranian and Egyptian societies.

According to Joe Schlesinger, "Sunnis consider their relationship with God direct and imams are generally seen only as prayer leaders", while "The Shia, on the other hand, have a hierarchical structure and their imams are considered community leaders". Egyptians are predominantly Sunni Muslims while Iranians are Shiites. Because Sunnis place less importance on the role of imams in society, it is logical that Sunnis would have a larger distinction between mosque and state. This contrasts with a Shiite society that places incredible emphasis on imams on society. In a Shiite society, imams would have more power and leadership because they would have to make that vital connection between God and his people. On the other hand, Sunnis are more apt to directly speak with God, and therefore have less need of an imam in society; therefore, the imams are not as powerful in a Sunni nation.

This has impact in the Egyptian Revolution because, obviously, the people involved are Sunni Muslims. I predicted that the Egyptian revolution will not end in a theocracy, because, among other reasons, the Sunnis will be less inclined to elevate an imam, or any other religious leader, to power. Unlike Khomeini who was an imam himself and easily convinced the Shiite Iranians to elect him leader, an Egyptian conservative leader will have a much harder time convincing the people to elect a religious figure to power.

Comparing the Taiping Rebellion with the rise of Communism in China

While reading about the rise of Communism in China, I couldn't help but compare Mao's ideology to Hong Xiuquan's ideology, who was the leader of the failed Taiping Rebellion in the mid 19th century. As I will show you, both Mao and Hong had similar political and economical ideas, and both of the movements were distinctly anti-traditional. However, the Taiping Rebellion was defeated in 1864, while the Communist party is still in power in China to this day.

The Taiping Rebellion was a massive rebellion in China during the Qing Dynasty, that resulted in, somewhere between, twenty to a hundred million deaths. The leader of this movement was Hong Xiuquan, who believed that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ, and who also believed that he was sent by God (the Christian God) to replace the Qing Dynasty with a Taiping heavenly kingdom. Throughout the rebellion, Hong called for the destruction of sacred Chinese artifacts because he wanted to completely remove any reminders of Confucianism. (http://taipingrebellion.com/) Furthermore, Hong's ideal society included the abolition of private land ownership. Instead, each Taiping family was allotted land proportional to their size. Also, there were public granaries assigned to every twenty five families; every group of twenty five families was treated as a community that was assigned a loosely-enforced quota of production. Hong's kingdom is best summed up in an excerpt from a document written in 1853; "There being fields, let all cultivate them; there being food, let all eat; there being clothes, let all be dressed; there being money, let all use it, so that nowhere does inequality exist, and no man is not well fed and clothed." (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taiping.html)

Mao Zedong's ideology was very similar to Hong's, in fact, Mao was actually inspired by the actions of Hong Xiuquan. Mao also desired to purge China of anything reminiscent of Confucianism and traditional Chinese culture. Therefore, Mao closed down temples when he first came to power in the early 1950s, Later, in 1965, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution which resulted in the widespread destruction of ancient monuments, books, art, and antiques. This is similar to how Hong destroyed similar ancient artifacts. In terms of egalitarianism, Mao also abolished private ownership of land and also redistributed this newly-seized land. Furthermore, Mao created "communes", which were small communities of people that were assigned a quota of produce. This is loosely similar to Hong's communities of "twenty five families".

Clearly, Mao and Hong were very similar in their approaches to change; both desired the termination of traditional Chinese culture, and both possessed very egalitarian economical ideas. This naturally leads to the question of what caused the Taipings to falter, whereas Mao's Communist Party succeeded. I believe that timing, though the simple answer, is the main reason why. The Taiping Rebellion lasted from 1850-1864; thus, the Chinese had not yet lost the Sino-Japanese war to the Japanese. According to the McKay textbook, it was it not until after the Sino-Japanese war that the Chinese realized that they were internationally, very weak (Mckay). That being said, at the time of the Taiping Rebellion, there was no major desire for the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty because there was no reason to believe that China needed reform, and certainly did not need reform with Western influence (Hong preached Christianity). Conversely, when Mao came to power, the Qing dynasty had already been overthrown. Secondly, there was no absolute government in China during the 1940s. The "government" at the time were the Nationalists, who were preoccupied with the Japanese in China (McKay). This distraction gave Mao the perfect chance to recruit followers and to spread propaganda; this coupled with the massive Chinese casualties suffered by the war between the nationalists and the Japanese gave Mao the perfect window of time to seize power.

Nonviolent or Violent Rebellion?

Gandhi is famous for holding fast to his belief that nonviolence is "a far more powerful weapon than guns or bombs." (In class Handout, 28). Even when the British in Colonial India physically harmed Indians, such as at the "Massacre at Amritsar", Gandhi never once condoned a violent reaction.

One of Gandhi's reasons for supporting nonviolence is obvious: violence is immoral and no good can result from it. This notion can be generally accepted. However, violence is often employed by rebels because it causes rapid change. This can be seen during the Indian Nationalist Movement, when after being released from jail, Gandhi was urged to start a new satyagraha campaign. Gandhi reluctantly agreed on the condition that the campaign would be explicitly nonviolent, however, some of his followers, who were impatient for change, burned a police station and killed 22 policemen in the process. Gandhi immediately ended this campaign after this incident.

Gandhi ignored the fact that violence quickens the pace of change. Instead, Gandhi once wrote that "Swaraj by non-violence must be a progressively peaceful revolution such that the transference of power...will be as natural as the dropping of a fully ripe fruit from a well-nurtured tree. I say again that such a thing may be quite impossible of attainment. But I know that nothing less is the implication of non-violence". (Handout, 42). The idea that Gandhi is trying to convey is that non violence is a much more natural transition of power than violence. This is based off of Gandhi's fundamental belief that truth will emerge inevitably. Thus, "truth" or in this case, freedom of the Indians from British captivity, will happen inevitably because no group can ever keep another group oppressed forever. Therefore, Gandhi sees no use in 'pressing the matter', especially if violence is the sacrifice that one must make in order to quicken the pace of change. Instead, Gandhi trusts that time will do its work and will eventually unravel all unjust things.

Is Gandhi correct in his statement that nonviolence will ultimately lead to justice? I say yes, because throughout history, no group has been prejudiced for eternity. Whether it be race, religion, gender etc., rights and freedoms have always emerged, to some extent, for the oppressed. Then, if the idea of inevitable truth holds true, there is no use for violence in fighting for independence. Violence causes increased emotion and bloodshed, neither of which are ultimately good. Instead, people should just remain calm and patient, and especially careful in practicing nonviolence. In the end, the oppressed will find justice.

An Ideal Communist Society: Does it promote Laziness?

On page 94 of "The Communist Manifesto", Karl Marx states that the "abolition of private property" is an inherent trait of an ideal communist society. Subsequently, once the bourgeoisie are forced to relinquish their private property, a classless society is formed. According to Marx, in a capitalist society there are two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. People in a capitalist society are placed in a class based on their relation to the society's means of production (57). Marx argues that the bourgeois own the means of production, meaning that they receive income from the 'produce', and they also pay the laborers. The laborers are named the proletarians, and because the laborers do not own any means of production, they must work for the bourgeois owners in order to create income and survive (68). Essentially, Marx defines social classes by capital. The bourgeois class receives most of the capital (because they own the means of production), and thus owns more private property, while the proletariat class works for the bourgeoisie, yet receives little capital and thus owns little private property.

According to Marx, a communist society will eliminate classes by eliminating 'private' capital. This means that all capital in a communist society will be owned by the government; the government will then ensure that ALL citizens receive a proportionate share of the capital. (Incidentally, the meaning of "proportionate" refers to the fact that each person will receive income that will satisfy, strictly, their needs, and nothing more.) In addition to making shared capital, all private property will be owned by the state. Together, these two ideals will cause all people to receive income proportional to "what they need".Also, no single person will be able to own more land, thus the material wealth of all people is equal. Ultimately, Marx defines social classes as categories of income, and if communism eliminates the discrepancies of income, then classes will cease to exist.

I would like to pose a question that refers to an idea set forth by Marx, in the Communist Manifesto; he says, "It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us" (86). Is Marx accurate in his declaration that a primary concern of a communist society is the resulting 'laziness' of the people? Yes, I believe that the concern is valid. This is because people will receive enough income to survive, no matter how hard they labor. In an ideal communist society, a doctor or a lawyer would make as much income as a sewage cleaner. Then, naturally one asks, what is the incentive to study rigorously at medical school or law school, when one can simply drop out after middle school? Marx seems to indicate that there is a natural desire in humans to forgo work in favor of being lazy. In the end, the equal income allows all people to survive (no matter what kind of occupation they have), and no one person can become richer, or poorer.

Even though the concern of laziness is certainly valid, the possibility of the problem, (I think) is not as likely. In an IDEAL communist society, everyone will have enough money in order to survive. Yes, people could then stop doing things that cause aggravation or work; however, this will also allow people to do whatever they want. Communism would allow people to no longer worry about money, and instead, people could actually pursue their passions. Artists could do what they love (create art) without fear of not making enough money. An avid fisherman could pursue his passion, even if in a capitalist society, his passion would yield no income. A communist society eliminates the concern of money, and allows people to do whatever they want. In fact, people would not be lazy, but instead, would be much more inclined to pursue activities. A normal human, who possesses inherent passions, would pursue his or her passions in a perfect communist society, and in fact would be much less stressed, lazt, and would not be conscious of money.

Basically, I would like to conclude with the point that an IDEAL communist society would eliminate any worries about money and would probably not cause laziness (but instead promote the pursuit of things that cause interest). However, there is no such thing as an ideal communist society, because people naturally do not want to change in order to conform.

The Industrial Revolution: A Widening Social Gap

The Industrial Revolution hardly fits the parameters that define a traditional revolution. Usually, when we think of revolutions, we think of war, riot, political upheaval, and chaos---lots of chaos. Because of this, the classical example of a revolution is the American Revolution, which features all of these qualities. However, the Industrial Revolution is not marked by war, nor fundamental political change; instead, the Industrial Revolution is distinguished by a massive, unprecedented social change. Incidentally, how did the Industrial Revolution fundamentally influence society? Specifically: did the social class "hierarchy" change?

Like the Enlightenment, or the present Information Revolution, the Industrial Revolution profoundly impacted how people lived. In England, the population skyrocketed from 9 million in 1780 to 21 million in 1851 (McKay, 725), the economic focus shifted from agriculture to factories, and most importantly, society redefined it's classes and roles. The latter of these changes is perhaps the most interesting, because of how technological advances so profoundly influenced social changes, and because of how differently the separate classes were affected. Although social classes were all impacted by the Industrial Revolution, the most progress can be seen in the middle class, while little to negative progress can be seen in the lower class; therefore, the Industrial Revolution actually widened the gap between the middle and lower classes, instead of benefitting all classes.

Clearly, the most impacted class during the Industrial Revolution was the middle class, which previously consisted of merchants and professional people. Thanks to a new economic system, "Laissez-Faire", which emphasized little government interference in terms of businesses, the somewhat wealthy and certainly comfortable middle class was able to evolve into factory owners. Not only did middle class families possess enough money in order to enter business, but also, many of them had rich networks of people that they could contact. Therefore, "Laissez-Faire" opened many windows of opportunity for people who had enough money to start up businesses because it provided the already wealthy with the freedom to use creativity in order to maximize profit. (It is important to note at this time that the previous 'noble class' remained relatively unchanged, and was still as proportionately rich as before).


Because of the new attitudes towards factories, and the combined technological advancements and high demand for product, the middle class families became incredibly wealthy. This increased wealth allowed middle class children to receive a formal education, which was expensive for the time (McKay, 734). However, a formal education was something that a lower class child could only dream of receiving. Obviously, this is because of the high cost; but also, lower class families did not earn enough money in order to advance themselves (for example, to potentially ascend the ranks and achieve a middle class status), and therefore they were never able to find a means to afford a formal education. This ultimately resulted in economical stagnation within the lower class, which saw evolution (the lower class transformed from farmers into factory workers), but little economic advancement. Because of this stagnation, the lower class watched as early capitalism (laissez-faire) led to competition among businesses, which in turn led to further progress and more wealth for the middle class. In the end, the rich became richer, and while the poor certainly did not become poorer, they did not become as proportionately wealthy as the middle class. Because of all of these factors, the economic gap, and therefore the social gap, between the middle and lower class widened during the Industrial Revolution.