The Dreamer

Utopia, by Thomas More(1478–1535), is a satirical and political work, which is considered to be one of the earliest dystopian pieces ever written. Thomas More is a Catholic Saint, who was Lord Chancellor of England during his lifetime. The literary piece follows the character, Raphael, who is a traveler. Raphael during his journeys, observes the political and economic situations in each country. One country in particular that he journeyed to, called Utopia, was different from all the countries he had journeyed to. Utopia is a country that is free of greed and money; a country full of peace, and in Raphael’s perspective, ideal. Throughout this piece of literature, you see a transition in Raphael’s character, from a sensible reformer to a less reasonable reformer.

At the beginning of Utopia, Raphael states that he is against standing armies and unjust punishment(execution for thieves), which sounds reasonable enough. Further in the book Raphael’s character turns to a more radical note: do away with private property, no money, governments should do away with taverns and gamblings. All of these beliefs that Raphael held were influenced by the society of Utopia, which he saw as an ideal. Utopia is a society that most would not find ideal; it is a society where there are no personal careers, there are limits on the number of children a family could have, and everyone dresses in the same way. Which explains why More built Raphael’s character by first having the character introduce the more reasonable ideas, to give the reader a subtle taste of what to expect, so when the more radical ideas are being introduced the reader would not be completely scandalized.

The majority of literate people who read this literary piece during the 16th century, and the majority of people who read Utopia, throughout the centuries would not approve of the majority of the more radical ideas introduced in the book. This is unless those radical ideas were introduced in a slower manner: reasonable, less reasonable, somewhat unreasonable, and unreasonable, to ease the reader to those ideas. 

In Utopia, the reasoning behind why Thomas More presented Raphael the traveler as a sensible reformer early in the first book, but not later on in the book, is because the majority of the beliefs portrayed in the book would not be accepted by the majority. It was a tactic most likely to help draw readers in, by first presenting the ideas that Raphael believed that was more believable first, before introducing the ideas that would be considered to be more radical.

Russia became a communist country under Lenin, who was the first of a series of leaders under the new Russian communistic government. What was the Russian like under Lenin? What kind of tasks did it attempt to achieve?

The government under Lenin was ruthless, harsh, and disastrous(the original revolutionaries had never run anything before). Lenin was a cruel and ruthless leader who exploited the people he was leading. He for example ordered the confiscation of many churches, saying that he would use the wealth of the churches toward the people. Not surprisingly enough that was very much not true and that money was used to buy weapons from Germany. During the end of his life, he ordered the exiling of many opposing scholars, which is one example of how easy it was to be deported or thrown into a prison camp in Russia at the time. The worst thing that Lenin and his government did during his leadership was being responsible for a famine that could have been prevented. This famine ended up killing over five million.

In conclusion, this was what the Russian Government under Lenin looked like, and these were some of the tasks that it attempted to achieve.

Soviet Russia is remembered and considered to be one of the primary examples of a communistic inspired government. Soviet Russia during its existence put in place many absurd and insane policies, which were damaging to the economy and the overall society. A well-known historian named Richard Pipes wrote, “Soviet Russia was the First Society in History to Outlaw Law.” What did he mean precisely by this?

The communist government in Russia came up with the policy that to become a judge in a court of law one did not need proper higher education, that a judge merely had to rely on their own personal morals. This was a disastrous decision because people who were definitely unfit for the job of a judge became judges. This policy more or less outlawed the law, which is a policy that only Soviet Russia could have come up with.

In turn, this is what the historian Richard Pipes meant when he wrote, “Soviet Russia was the first society in the history of outlaw law,” which just comes to show another example of the insanity and corruption of Soviet Russia.

Karl Marx was one of the key figures in the creation of the political ideology of communism. Vladimir Lenin on the other hand was the key orchestrator of the Revolution in Russia, which led to the founding of a new communistic government in Russia. Though Lenin acquired many of his beliefs and ideas from Marx himself, he added his own twist to the idea of communism, which is commonly known as Leninism. Bringing up the question: what are the primary differences between Leninism and Marxism?

The primary difference between Leninism and Marxism is that Marxism states the belief that communism will happen inevitably. Due to communism being the ideal political form of organization it will occur in the natural flow of history. Leninism on the other hand stated the opposite of the belief on how communism would be embodied into society. Lenin believed that society would never adopt communism on its own, that it needed a push for it to be embodied into society. People would never adopt communism on their own so they had to be forced to adopt it.

In conclusion, the primary differences between Leninism and Marxism was the belief in how communism would be embodied in society. Marx believed that society would ultimately adopt communism eventually, and Lenin believed that people would never adopt communism on their own, and the only way they would adopt it is if they were pushed to do so.

World War I officially ended in late 1918. Due to it being the end of a major war each country involved had to discuss and come up with specific arrangements for going forward. The main countries that came together that discussed the peace settlement were: France, Britain, United States, and Italy. Recent historians have argued that the peace settlement at the end of World War I helped pave the way for World War II, how did they argue this point?

The first issue that arose with the peace settlement was Germany not being allowed to be involved in any of the peace settlement discussions directly. This put Germany into a difficult position because they themselves could not directly discuss the terms of peace. The outcome of the peace settlement for Germany was that the country itself was broken into smaller parts, and divided between the countries of Italy, France, and Poland. Germany lost most of its outside territories and colonies. This in and of itself left much room for resentment and anger in the German people. Thus this was how some historians argued that the peace settlement at the end of World War I helped pave the way for World War II.

Germany during the later half of the 19th century was under the control of the Prussians which was led by a man named Otto von Bismarck(1815-1898). Bismarck was heavily involved in the idea of reforming and changing Germany into a more modern country. A term that was used during this time in regards to Bismarck and his reforms to Germany is the term, Kulturkampf? What was Kulturkampf?

Kulturkampf means “culture war,” and was used to refer to the conflict between the Prussians and Catholics. This conflict began thanks to Bismarck seeing the Catholics as being backward, and needed to be reformed. This struggle between the two groups was mainly a struggle on religious and educational control, which the Catholic church had heavy influence upon.

In conclusion, Kulturkampf refers to the “culture war,” or conflict between the Catholics and Prussians in Germany during the later period of the 19th century. 

William Gladstone was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1868-1894. He was primarily interested in domestic affairs, especially ones involving Ireland, which during this time, did not have good relations with England. Ireland at the time endured some unfair policies which were enforced by the English, such as a tax for Irish Catholics that had to be paid to the Protestant Church. Gladstone believed that Ireland should have some independence from England, and made arguments in favor of home rule for Ireland. What were the arguments that Gladstone made in favor of home rule for Ireland?

The first argument that Gladstone made was that home rule for Ireland would help improve the suffering relations between Ireland and England. He pointed out that putting more regulations, and unfair policies upon the Irish their relationship with Ireland would suffer further, and leave an opening for the Irish to rebel against England. His other argument was that giving more freedoms and the power of home rule to the Irish would prevent them from separating from Britain altogether. 

Though the arguments of Gladstone were reasonable enough, and may have helped with the poor relationship between Ireland and England, nothing was actually done. England and Ireland’s relationship continued to suffer on, which led to further conflicts down the line.

Germany before 1871 was not a unified country, instead Germany consisted of smaller states that had very little in common culturally. This is rather similar to how things were in Italy. This was all to change though when a German man named Otto von Bismarck, who held Prussia’s interest in high regard wanted the situation in Germany to change.

The key steps in the process of German unification were three wars, which were carried out by Bismarck. The first war out of the three was between Denmark and Prussia/Austria, Austria ended up gaining some new territories from Denmark. Bismarck had much contempt towards Austria, which was especially seen when Prussia turned against Austria in the second war out of the three. Prussia defeated Austria, which made them an even stronger European power. France was not exactly thrilled by Prussia’s sudden advancement, which led to the third and final war which was between France and Prussia. Prussia was victorious, and ended up gaining more territory. This in turn was how Bismarck was able to succeed in the unifying of Germany. Thus, these were the key steps in the process of German unification.

Before Italy was a unified country like it is today, Italy actually was divided into many states, which were almost entirely independent from each other. This was the case in Italy for many centuries until 1852 when Count Camillo di Cavour(who was in favor of Italian unification), became prime minister of the Italian state of Piedmont, which brought forth the key steps in the process of Italian Unification.

Cavour, in an attempt to be in the good favor of France which was under the rule of Napoleon III at the time, contributed some troops to the Crimean War effort on the side of France. This was relatively successful. Eventually when Austria attempted to take Piedmont a couple of years later France stepped in to prevent Austria from taking the state. Cavour because of this was able to gain the Italian state of Lombardy which had been under the control of Austria. Cavour was unsatisfied with just Lombardy and began building fraudulent plebiscites in Tuscany and Romanga, to attempt to persuade them to join the unification of Italy.

A very important turning point though was when the very respected general Giuseppe Garibaldi took some of the southern Italian states and gifted them to Piedmont. In the later portion of the 1860s the Papal states and Venetia were claimed by Piedmont, this was the final step in the Italian unification.

To conclude these were the key steps in the unification of Italy, to what it is as a country today. 

Karl Marx was an economic and political philosopher during the 19th century. He was a significant advocate of the political ideology of communism. Though the ideas in the ideology of communism were nothing new, Marx was important in compiling these ideas and making them influential. Though many can agree that communism does not work and is a faulty ideology, it is important to point out the specific points in an ideology, which moves on to the question: what are two weak points in the views of Karl Marx?

It is difficult to point out two specific weak points of the beliefs of Marx because communism has many weak points, and is rather impossible to carry out fully. One weak point in the views of Marx is how he believed that people in a communistic society can choose whatever career or job they want at any time. For example, say if I was good at writing, I could have a career in writing, but if I am also skilled at baking, that can also be a job for me. This is rather impossible in a communistic economy. In a communistic economy, everything is pre-planned, which means that there is little room for people to be changing careers constantly, whenever they please.

Another weak point in Marx’s viewpoint is his view on business owners or bosses. He believed that bosses were selfish, money-hungry, and lazy. This in and of itself is a very large assumption that by no means applies to most bosses. To become a boss, business owner, or manager in a capitalistic economy a person must work his way up. Once a person becomes a boss, that does not mean that they just sit around taking advantage of people, they actually probably have more work on their plate now that they are boss. 

In conclusion, there are many weak points in the views of Karl Marx; two of these weak points are: people are able to switch jobs or careers whenever they want in a communistic society, and that business owners, bosses, or managers are selfish, money-hungry, and lazy. Both of these views are faulty for numerous reasons and contradict each other within themselves.