A Comparison between Stalin and Chairman Mao

During our study of China under the rule of Mao, I noticed he had many similarities to Stalin and the tactics Stalin used while in power. A few of the similarities and differences between the two men and their tactics are listed below.

Qualities/conditions only belonging to Stalin

·            25 million people died

·            The Five Year Plan (Stalin’s five year plan)

·            Pro communism actions if not necessarily ideals

·            People re-educated in gulags

·            People's Comissariat for Internal Affairs

·            Shot the sailors who argued for democracy

·            18 December 1878 – 5 March 1953

·            “Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.” -Stalin

Qualities/conditions belonging to both Stalin and Mao

·            Millions died because of them

·            A five year plan

o   Both plans failed, to varying degrees

·            Pro communism

·            Thought of as heroes at the time

·            Cult personality

o   Songs written praising them, etc

·            Knocked off political opposition and people who protested too loudly

·            Sent people off for ‘re-education’ via hard labor

·            Supported in their efforts by armed forces and terror

·            Communal farms

·            Their lifetimes overlap between 1893 and 1953.

·            Revolution requires violence

·            Everyone encouraged to turn ‘traitors’/non-believers in, even friends and family

Qualities/Conditions only belonging to Mao

·            15 million people killed

·            The Great Leap Forward (Mao’s five year plan)

·            Pro strict communism

·            Wrote his own book and told everyone to use it to answer any questions

o   The Little Red Book sounds like it was treated almost religiously

·            People wrote song and dance numbers praising him

·            People re-educated working farms in the country

·            Involved the children and people via bug and sparrow catching

·            Red Guards

·            December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976

·            “Revolution is not a dinner party…” –Mao

It is very interesting exactly how many similarities exist between the two of them. They seem to have had similar view on revolution and violence, and were equally talented at inspiring love in the people. Their lifetimes overlapped by a total of sixty years, and they may well have been influencing each other, one way or the other, as early as 1918.  Did the rising of one of these men inspire the rise of the other?

Mahatma Gandhi

Everyone has heard of Mahatma Gandhi,  perhaps seen his picture. Most people know that his most famous work was his work to free India, and that he protested violence.

Not many people know what sort of a man he was personally. I fall into this category.

Still, one has to wonder what such a man was like? He mobilized a revolution against one of the greatest powers of the time, and along the way he revolutionized the art of rebellion. On the other hand, many of his followers were imprisoned, injured or worse while doing what he asked of them, and, if only by his own definition, failed in what he had set out to do: a non-violent separation of India from the British Empire.

One popular point of view is that Gandhi was an amazingly strong-willed, trusting and believed strongly in the inherent goodness of an individual. He must have strongly believed in human goodness, because his entire idea of satyagraha depends on it. He must have been strong willed, because he was able to go through such abuse for what he believed in, and he was able to keep fasting when he said he would until his demands were met, even inn his old age. He must have been trusting, because satyagraha would not have worked if there was distrust present, and he had complete faith in his followers.

However, one has to realize: he went through what he did with full knowledge of what that meant for him, and that he could be imprisoned, injured or killed. More then that, through word and deed he encouraged others to do the same, or act in the same spirit: a fact not always taken into account when considering who Gandhi was. Gandhi led people into situations where they could get hurt in many different ways, but they went knowing the potential consequences and fully willing anyway. This is where the image of Gandhi, the general, appears. That statement is not perfectly accurate: Gandhi never served in the army as any sort of officer, and Gandhi himself would dislike the idea of being associated with such death and bloodshed. But the job description of a general and the description what Gandhi did are, in fact, surprisingly similar. Gandhi planned out where his protests would be and what would be done, what strategies would be used during the 'battle'. People followed him all over the country, and he led them all. He felt responsible for their actions and they felt loyalty to him, facts demonstrated by his choice to fast after the British policemen were killed and during the rioting while the Indian population was dividing into those of Pakistan and India, and the nation-wide response of the people to give him what he wanted. Even his followers are comparable to American soldiers: they all signed up willingly to 'fight', knowing the potential dangers, and yet fought anyway. They signed up because of their beliefs, like many soldiers do today.

So who was Gandhi? It is hard to say for certain. I believe he was both kindly and trusting man, and a general for a war that wasn't. He had the mind and the cunning of a professional lawyer, and had a mind for people and philosophy: there is no reason why he could not have had both facets. How interesting is it, then, that he is remembered today for one of these faces he showed the world, and not the other.

What it takes to start a revolution

During a discussion that had turned towards the subject of what it takes to start a revolution, and whether war was really necessary, war was referred to as the catalyst, or the spark. Which had me thinking: if war was the spark, what was everything else? Where would government, and the like come in?

The kindling would be the general problems that the people who rebelled lived under. The smaller things that build up over time, like pine needles or old newspapers do. They might support some anger, but could only sustain it for a little while alone. A kindling fire, when nothing else is there, would be easy enough to smother and put out.

The weakened government itself would be the chopped logs that burn in the fire. While a kindling fire might not do much, the kindling can get a nice blaze going with enough fuel. A weak government is the perfect setting for a revolution.

The larger problems would be the gasoline poured over the top of it all. Gasoline is a quick-catching flammable liquid. It catches fast, it burns quickly, but it travels even faster. Because it is a liquid, it can make it’s way onto cloths, it can run across surfaces and even float across water. Little problems, generally speaking, don’t apply to everyone, are more annoying and representative than necessarily problematic, or some combination there of. Larger problems spread and affect everything they touch, ready to go up in flames at any time.

War, the example used in the original discussion but not the only possibility, would be the spark or catalyst. It would jumpstart the activities of the revolution, lighting the kindling and the gasoline and logs in such a way so as to bring everything together into the flames of change.

It is important to note, however, that the flames of change: not revolution. Even with the kindling, the spark, the gasoline and wood all together and in order, one might not have a revolution. It is possible to smother a roaring fire with the right materials, the right timing. If a fire is smothered early enough, the flames might not have taken hold: merely blackening the wood and kindling. Effectively causing little change, but leaving marks and memories that could, depending, either protect the wood somewhat from further damage or harbor a burning ember that might one day flame up again. Likewise, smothering a fire may put it out, but might just as easily store burning embers and coals until some future time.

If a war, or an event that also emphasizes problems and weakens the government, is the spark, then it is not too hard to see how everything else fits together into the fire and spark metaphor.

Self Help- a Philosophy

Samuel Smiles is famous for writing the first self help book in 1882 titled, simply enough, Self Help.  His main ideas therein are that the harder one works, the farther one goes and the better one is. If a person is poor, it's his or her own fault.

Obviously, this guide also doubles as a textbook to Smiles' personal philosophy: most self-help books do. But what has me curious, is what other philosophies contributed to this? The enlightenment, fueled with the ideas of Locke, had ended a long time before Smiles published his work, but those ideas undoubtedly still held some sway in society. The catholic church had also made a comeback by that time: a church that, to my limited knowledge, agreed with several of Hobbes' general principals. This could easily have been an influence even if Smiles followed another religion, simply because of how many people were religious, and how much religion had soaked into culture.

Of these potential influences, there are a few similarities of interest.  For one, it seems rather Hobbsian that it is the individual's fault if he doesn't get further in life, but rather Lockeian to believe that any man can better himself without influence of government. For that matter, Smiles wrote in his book

                "Whatever is donefor men or classes, to a certain extent takes away the stimulus and necessity of doing for themselves; and where men are subjected to over-guidance and over-government, the inevitable tendency is to render them comparatively helpless. Even the best institutions can give a man no active help."

Smiles shows both Hobbsian and Lockeian ideas in his philosophy, and goes on to inspire one of the best known believers of socialism: Karl Marx. How else did he effect people's views? Karl Marx inspired to communist movement: what other ripple effects did his book cause?

It's interesting, I think, how similar the American, French, and Hatian revolutions were.

Similarities between the Haitian revolution and the American revolution are striking, in many ways.
Both colonies were rich, offering up produce for sale that could be found few, if any, other places in the world. Both colonies fought wars against a nation over seas, and those nations both wanted their colonies for their incomes. The colonies were helped by other foreign nations, and in both cases the underdog fought and won, hoping to achieve better treatment by those conventionally considered 'betters'.

Differences were present as well, of course: George Washington didn't die in an enemy cell, and unlike the American war, the Haitian Revolution was based predominantly around race and the rights inherent to those of a given race, while Americans fought over the right to communicate their opinion to their leaders, and for equal rights/closer to equal rights among the classes. Unlike France, Britain was not currently at war and mid revolution when it's colony rebelled, and the Americans did not use scorched earth tactics against the incoming British.

The similarities between the American and French revolutions are quite obvious as well: one was based off the other, after all. Similar goals, similar classes of people leading the rebellion, and similar ideals buoying the whole thing. Differences are clear as well: the American Revolution was significantly less bloody than the French one, and significantly more successful. The distance that enemies had to travel to reach France was nothing compared to the journey to America, the amounts and proportions of soldiers per side of the battles, and the shear number of sides to the conflict all differed.


These revolutions share so much in common with each other, and likely with other revolutions as well.
Are there common traits to revolutions?

Napolionic Charisma

Napoleon was almost as famous for being charismatic as he is for his short stature.

Napoleon wasn't short.
Was he charismatic?

How many people followed him for him, instead of because of the alternative option or the promises he made? How much of a factor was his charisma, actually?

I don't know, but I'd assume that most people followed for his promises and the threats posed by his opposition. After all, charisma has the most pull on the people closest to you, and writing and speeches only go so far. Napoleon could not possibly have known everyone who followed him personally: there were simply too many people. Public speeches could inspire those who hear it, but only so many people could hear any given speech, and each time someone passes on word of his charisma, passion, and whatever else Napoleon demonstrated while speaking, the actual glow of his charisma would be transfered less and less. Out of all the time he spent working with and on France, how much of that time was spent in public, densly-populated areas, and how much was away from most of the people he'd want to sway?

The World in a Painting: Lady Liberty Leading the People

Everyone recognizes the painting Lady Liberty Leading the People. Many recognize how the ideals of the french revolutions shine through it. All the same, I was curious to see what I could dig up if I properly analysied the painting.

 

Painted in France, October-December of 1830 by E. Delecroix, this was meant to be a celebration of the the successful Three Glorious Days: a revolution that took place over three days. This painting, when completed, was bought by the new king to place in his throne room, as a reminder of how he was put into power, and how his predecessor was taken out of it. However, due to the central image of a forceful, even violent woman, the image was deemed too inflamatory, and was eventually sent of to be put into storage with Delecroix's aunt. After several years, it finally went to the Louvre, where it still exists today.

This painting positively reeks of symbolism.

Marianne stands out from the painting around her as a classically painted figure in a mostly romanticly painted painting, bringing to mind the Greek statues and roman gods via pose, dress, and symbolism: Delecroix wanted Marianne to be liberty personified. She poses statically in a painting filled with movement, and she is the central and highpoint in the painting. Her dress drapes in such a way as to hang like a toga and reveal much of her bosom, trait familiar to ancient sculpture. 

She stands in the middle of a battlefield, barefoot, half-naked and unmoving, completely unworried about the surrounding mayhem: she doesn't even raise her bayonet. This may be to demonstrate that liberty has already won. Her dress and manner are not particuarly fancy, even peasant-like: if she is a goddess-figure, she is the people's figure. Her dress is yellow, a color that brings joy and happiness to mind, and her belt is red. This directs the eyes path: the eye flows from the middle of the painting to Marianne's face, where she sports rosy cheeks and a phyrigian cap. The eyes jump from there to the flag, the third tripe of which is red, before traveling down the flag pole, pausing at Marianne's belt, before leaping to the kneeling woman's head covering and belt. Marianne's belt also looks a little bit like a stream because of how it flows around and behind her, and the two tails of the ribbon meet in a cross. For these reasons, the belt might be a tribute to those who had and will die for liberty, and/or it may indicate God's favor with the war: in spite of France thoroughly annoying the Church in the 1780s, the Catholic Church had been brought back into France by 1801, and religion had always been important to many Europians, even before then. The belt is part of a triangle formed between the colors on Marianne's face, flag and belt, and that triangle both directs the vision downwards and ensures that both the flag and Mirianne's face and cap are noticed.

Marianne is wearing a phyrigian cap; an accessory indigenous to ancient Rome, the caps marked freed slaves. The French revolutionaries adopted these caps as a symbol while they worked to escape their absolute monarchy. A fairly obvious symbol, it is double-sided: it demonstrates both their goal, what will be written on their victory banner, and it shows what they think about the system they were fighting. The fact that their chosen symbol is so obviously connected with freedom and was something to be worn in the streets, the revolutionaries must have felt it was a worthy cause and battle cry that would draw people into agreement. The fact that the cap used to symbolize freedom for slaves, implies that the french revolutionaries considered themselves slaves to the government, at least when the cap was first adopted. She also carries the flag, waving in the center and at the top of the painting. The white of the flag  almost fades into the clouds in the background: this may simply be an attempt to make the red and blue more striking, or it might be another sign of God's approval.

A typical classical painting trick is to use triangles in the structure of the painting, used to draw attention to a single point. There are two main triangles formed in Lady Liberty Leading the People: one by man in top hat, the woman kneeling and the boy beside Marianne, and the other triangle formed by the boy, the man in top hat, and Lady Liberty herself.  These draw attention to  the woman kneeling and Marianne, respectively, who are connected by line of sight along Marianne's flag's pole. As mentioned above, this painting was held back and kept from display because of the inflammatory strength of Marianne. Perhaps Delecroix recognized this possibility, and painted the other woman in there to provide contrast to Marianne, and imply that normal women did not wander around on the battlefront carrying bayonets.

Another interesting idea in this peace is the existence certain inalienable rights. Several such rights are outlined in The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, including the rights to have an individual opinion and to communicate it: both of these rights are expressed by the existence of the political propaganda itself. It is interesting to note that in the thesaurus, ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ are synonymous, and  the Oxford-English Dictionary definition of ‘freedom’, is “The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint” (English-Oxford Dictionary). This isn't just Lady Liberty leading her people to a fight for freedom. This was a fight for their rights as well.

The foreground of the painting shows that the fighters are willing to kill and die for their rights, demonstrated by the men along the bottom of the image. Some of the men were soldier’s uniforms, and another wears only a shirt and a sock: these deaths are striking in that, unlike the art common to the era, not only is death depicted, it’s depicted in a brutally ugly and honest way, bringing home the cost of the victory. It is possible that these deaths are particularly ugly because, by 1790s, the army that this painting implies the people fought would have been made up of home-grown soldiers, normal French citizens sent off to war. Another possible reason is that by the early 1800s, most of the French were sick and tired of war and death.

Equality is idea was particularly obvious in the people surrounding Marianne: people of all ages, sexes, classes and races have come out to fight for their freedom. To Marianne’s right a little boy who appears to be lower-middle class, eager to fight the enemy with pistols drawn and blazing. Before her kneels a partially-obscured woman, who appears to be asking or begging for something from her. Marianne, a female in herself, bears a bayonet with apparent comfort, and the ease of long use. Meanwhile, at Marianne’s left stand two easily distinguishable men: an upper-class merchant who wears a black jacket, tie and top hat while he holds his rifle cocked, and a man with dark skin, wearing beret and pistols. This man could quite easily be someone's heir due to France's unique inheritance traditions. If a child is born of a Caucasian man and his slave, then the child was often taken in by the father, fed, clothed, sent to school, taken care of, and allowed to inherit.

The background is hazy, with just enough detail to set the painting in France: the buildings themselves are from all over France, and were merely shown together in this image: this may be, again, to clarify that the setting is in France, and it may be to imply that the revolution is happening everywhere throughout France. The corners of the painting are darkened with approaching night and the smoke that obscures the sky suggests that the battle was just recently fought, setting the mood and adding a touch of realism. There is a hazy shadow behind the hoard of people to Marianne's left, implying the untold multitudes who were willing to fight and die for their freedom.

What do you think? Any other symbols that strike you?