Summary

In class, we simulated a debate between the three leading Russian political groups: the Mensheviks, Bolsheviks and Octoberists. While these political groups that were all in agreement of the Russian necessity to undergo some form of political change. However, while they shared that common understanding of the deteriorating Russian state, they differed in not only the manner of implementing the necessary governmental change but also in the urgency or timing that this change required. The Mensheviks were tied strongly to Marx’s theory, and thus believed that Russia was not at the appropriate time for Russia to undergo a shift from feudalism to communism, especially since Russia had not yet transitioned to capitalism, which, according to Marx, was an essential component in the proper establishment of communism. To contrast this belief that Russia was not ready to shift to communism was the opinion of the minority, the Bolsheviks, who believed that they could divert from Marx’s complete theory and instead relieve Russia from its dismal political state by forcing Russia to switch to communism through a revolution. While the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks at least had common ground about the inevitability of this revolution and shift to communism, the Octoberists believed that somehow, the communist state could coexist with the current Russian government.

            While the Bolsheviks had been the minority, it was their argument that ultimately proved to be the most poignant and gained the most momentum. The Russian people were impatient, having waited and suffered too long with little to no governmental response or help. It is much easier to present the argument that the Bolsheviks did: one that would provide seemingly instant results for the discontented masses. It is much more difficult to tell people to wait and suffer even longer.   

844-851

While much of Europe experienced industrial change, and in countries, such as Germany, this change served as a unifying factor, Russia’s process of industrialization was particularly unique and further divided the enormous European country. Since it is such a huge country, Russia couldn’t industrialize in a uniform pattern, thus leaving some urban, industrialized patches amongst the immense rural area. Russia was further destabilized as a result of the economic downturn that it experienced, which inevitably resulted in increased unemployment and thus peasant discontent. Russia’s economic and industrial split resulted in a greater cultural divide. The peasants desperately believed that they could express their discontentment to Tsar Nicholas II, however, when a group of them attempted to articulate their dissatisfaction to the Tsar, they were met with a group of military officers, who, instead of being open to listening to the needs of the people, chose to shoot the dissatisfied peasants along with their faith in the security of their Tsar. The unequal spread of industrialization and employment opportunities inevitably led to peasant dissatisfaction. However, while this unhappiness was almost expected, the governmental refusal to adhere to or even listen to the complaints and needs of the people was not anticipated and demonstrated how, in order to industrialize, the Russian proletariat were going to suffer. 

823-837

Toward the end of the 19^th century, Europe experienced an industrial change that intensified European dependency on foreign goods and work, strengthened mass media and reorganized the preexisting capitalist institutions. This European cultural development was founded strongly in the technological development that resulted in a utilization of new materials, particularly steel. The transition from the use of iron to the use of steel shaped the European cultural for it provided more efficient technology that allowed for mass production, thus increasing the European desire for rapid production of manufactured goods. The European demand for rapid access to products was supported by innovation in technology, such as the Thomas Edison’s invention of the incandescent-filament light, which provided seemingly instant results.

            Aside from the technological innovations at home, the later part of the 19^th century also marked the spread of European influence and thus culture into other countries that were considered less developed in the eyes of the Europeans. This intensified imperialism was greatly supported by the new European dependency on oil (as opposed to the prior dependency on coal). Dependency on oil allowed European industries to move, since they were no longer tied to coal as an energy source. The use of oil as an energy source also allowed Europeans to travel farther faster, thus expediting the European sphere of influence and potential to exploit those less developed countries.

            The end of the 19^th century was the period in which the foundation was laid for the demand for seemingly instant results. Europeans had faster access to materials, information and countries, and thus grew accustomed to such quick results.

Summary

As demonstrated in, “A Place in the Sun” (1901), by Kaiser Wilhelm II, the strength of nationalism is a tool used by nations to promote imperialism. Wilhelm explains how through imperialism, citizens focus their attention abroad and on servicing the German nation instead of worrying about “the pettiness which surrounds him in daily life”.  Consequently, imperialism would strengthen a nation such as Germany internally and externally, for while people’s attention is refocused to German expansion, Germany is simultaneously achieving an international reputation.

            However, despite its power in affecting the people, nationalism was not the only tool used to encourage imperialism. There was the civilizing mission, or, as Rudyard Kipling writes of, “The White Man’s Burden” (1899). While Kipling could either be presenting sarcastic or genuine beliefs, imperialism was undoubtedly presented to citizens as an act to help those less fortunate and uncivilized nations. In his piece, Kipling’s descriptions of the members of imperialized nations as “savages” and “half-devil and half-child” distances those people from the civilized world and would most likely inspire anger or minimally a desire to change (and, as it is implied, therefore help) those “savages”.

            While there were other, more political devices used to awaken public support for imperialism, nations rallied the most support through playing the sentiments of the public. Both nationalism and the use of the “civilizing mission” touched the core and identity of the public—whether a national or more spiritual identity, and from this manipulation of human sentiment, imperialism created a foundation of public support.

793-806: Imperialism and the Opium Trade

European imperialism allowed the technologically advanced European nations to exploit the less technologically advanced and therefore vulnerable colonized nations. This exploitation is demonstrated through European imperialism in India, in which British traders exploited the Indian workers and opium sources. The British East India Company managed the opium trade that was initiated due to Britain’s abundant opium-growing territory in northeast India. The British exploitation of India’s opium sources and the desperation of the Indians for work yielded an industry that expanded rapidly, and a European addiction to this drug established quickly. Soon an “Opium Trade Triangle” of sorts was created between India (who provided the opium) Europe (who traded the highly valued product) and China (whose goods were purchased by European traders). In this triangle, the European traders maintained the power and influence over China and India, who were subject to the will of the British. Imperialism gave Europeans access to new markets, such as the opium trade, thus expanding European influence territorially as well as economically.

787-793

The 19^th century imperialist movement was not driven by one exclusive force. However, nationalism was an undeniably powerful component that propelled imperialism. The imperialist movement followed the 18^th century nationalistic movement and was thus rooted in a desire to expand a nation’s sphere of influence. Imperialism served as a manner through which nations could demonstrate their technological and military power and establish Western superiority over the “inferior” occupants of the lands that Europeans colonized. The lingering nationalist sentiment sought the powerful reputation that successfully colonizing a nation would yield. The act of formal imperialism is an immediate demonstration of the strength of a nation, but this powerful reputation extends beyond a nation’s ability to colonize. After colonizing an “inferior” nation, Europeans are able to exploit the local resources, which expands the European economy, further strengthening the European nation. Nationalism gave European nations the momentum to colonize other countries, for it was based in the innate desire to create a powerful nation, and European nations would do whatever it takes in order to establish a strong reputation.