Causes of War in this Unit

Cause for Crimean War--threat of Russian transgressions into the Balkan Peninsula; romanticism in France

Cause of Danish War--Realpolitick--Bismarck convinced Austria the need to remove Danish influence--reality Bismarck was attempting to get rid of a rival

Cause of Austro-Prussian War--Reality--Bismarck tricked Austria into attacking, helping forge the North German Confederation

Cause of Franco-Prussian War--Ems Telegram offended the entire French nation; reality Bismarck tricked Napoleon III to invade Prussia by invading South Germany first--forcing the Southern German states to unite with Prussia, forming Germany

Marxism and Christianity Blog

Let's stop posting on that post. If your question has not been answered here, please respond to this post.

I tried to read all of the postings and respond and scolded one for a language issue. So, please, any other comments post here so I can get to them quicker.

By the way, WOW--you guys are GREAT!

False Premise on Your View of Communism in China, Russia and Cuba

G-Money, I understand all of your points and they are valid, but I will argue from another perspective:

1. Russia--Yes, Stalin was a bad, bad, very bad guy, but were the Czars' any better? Plus, there are still Russians who desire the stability he brought. The Capitalist Revolution in Russia of the 1990's has not been the success our bourgeois pigs wanted (since they saw opportunities to make money :)
2. China--the rightful government you said in Taiwan was led by a nasty guy named Chang Kai-Shek. I discussed this issue with a Chinese nationalist with you same view, but I was sorely destroyed by this guy's knowledge of the situation. Remember, Mao was a bad, bad, very bad guy, but it is the first time in history China can feed its own population with only limited famines.
3. Cuba--was Batista any better than Castro? He was a guy controlled by the mafia. Check out Godfather II--a good depiction of events of the revolutionary era.

Overall, I think your view is that Communism has been corrupted by leaders. Therefore, it is not specifically the men, but the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Italian and German Unification--A Connection?

I would not say a "connection" but more of commonalities. Both unifications had strong realpolitick leaders (Bismarck in Germany and Cavour in Italy). The unification process occurred at the same time. The romantics are the one's who kicked started the movements.

The differences are in the end product. Yes, they were both united by 1871, but the difference is the years after. Rather than becoming great, Italy will lack true stability since the Italians were not sure of this Italy thing--for generations they had been loyal only to their city-states. Plus, Southern Italy was so different that Northern--rural, backwards vs. urban and modern. The problems would only begin to mount.

Germany united in greatness. Prussia had dismantled the Danes, Austrians and French. The Germans were convinced by the Prussian force. Plus, all parts of Germany had been developing due to the customs union that was officially recognized by 1848 in the Frankfurt Assembly.

The Creepy Teacher who watches the blog unfold

Sorry Parker, I did not read the blog either night. I had a family to hang with then a ministry to fulfill. I did enjoy the writings though.

Communism and Socialism

These two terms have been interchangeable.

When I think of Communism, I think of a revolutionary take over and an immediate ending of private property with a forced equal redistribution of wealth. With death to the bourgeois pigs.

Socialism is more of an evolution of similar principles. Socialism attempts to direct the factors of production to more of a redistribution of wealth. Rather than brute force, it is more evolutionary.

Why did Marxism fail to be realized?

In your opinion, what was the greatest obstacle for the implementation of Marxism?

Marxism in a nut shell

Marxism (Communism) developed truly after 1848. The revolutions had failed. Utopians were no where to be found, Louis Blanc's national workshops went bankrupt, and anarchy did not make sense. The British utilitarian reforms were still controlled by bourgeoisie--enough said.

Therefore, Marx and Engels developed a dialectic that offered a new perspective on history. Class struggles drove history and Europe was facing the last chapter.

The bourgeoisie were completing the necessary task--complete infrastructure. With that completed, the bourgeoisie would still continue to dominate the government, overexploiting the proletariat (working class). Then, the bourgeoisie would go so far that the proletariat would spontaneously revolt, killing off all of the bourgeois pigs.

Then, the spontaneous leaders would emerge and form a dictatorship of the proletariat to recondition or socialize the people not to desire or want the products the bourgeois had manipulated them with.

Once this socialization was completed, the withering of the state would occur. The government would ultimately disappear and pure communism would exist with no more conflict. Pure communism would have no more classes and with true equality the goodness of humanity would emerge.

Tuesday's Test

What are you struggling with?

Marx--an answer to the void the Church left

Before looking at this post, you must wrestle with the first post.

Now, think of this possibility--The Christian Church, during the Protestant and Catholic Reformation, surrendered the ideals of community to sell its faiths to the people. Rather that a revolutionary society made up of communities loving on each other, the Church accepted the Modernistic view of individuals and secularism. With the rising industrial corruption of society, the Church had no ability to reach out since it had already surrendered. Therefore, Marxism is a natural product of a secular society that NEEDS salvation from industrial ills.

What do you think about that?

Confused about Marx?

Marx and his Marxism is more difficult to understand that even capitalism. First, you must remember the discussion on capitalism and the concept I introduced--the "Industrial Caste System." Remember?

Now, Karl Marx developed his view on history from a historian by the name of Hegel. Right now, go to google and type Hegel. How does his view on history differ from the traditional? What does he say about "great men"? Rather than looking to the men or even the different aspects of the ages, what does he determine to be the driving force of history?

If you have looked at Hegel, now look how Marx manipulates this into class stuggle. According to Marx, what is the last class struggle? Explain.

What does Marx really believe?