RPC Western Civ II Final Essay: The Individual VS The Collective

Writing assignment: What is one issue that reflects the individualist versus collectivist outlook in your own times? How does it do this?
Well, everyone, this is the end of Western Civilization II! I have had a wonderful time learning about the events of Western History from 1492 to the end of the Cold War, my teachers Tom Woods and Hunt Tooley have been incredibly informative, and I’m ready to cover the topic of today’s essay.
What is one issue that reflects the individualist versus collectivist outlook in my own times? How does it do this? Well, let’s cover collectivism first. Collectivism is an idea that puts cohesiveness and collective worth in the spotlight, while pushing out individual worth. Collectivists value personal sacrifice for the group and society’s “greater good”. In history we have seen this view backed first by German Sociologists in 1930, but this model of collectivism would later present itself as a model of Marxism/Leninism.
What about the opposite pole? Individualism focuses down upon “the right of the individual to freedom and self-realization”. Politically individualist ideologies tend to follow the line of thought which supports civil liberties and is found on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum, as well as anarchism and libertarianism. The real focus is all on the individual, and how every individual has a set of rights protecting them from coercion via the state.
People opposed to this view claim and argue that it is not only selfish but heartless to put the “individual” over the “collective”; that we need Collectivism. My counterpoint (and a common one at that) is that kindness can certainly exist in Individualism. How? Voluntary cooperative groups! Collectivism should not be considered a truly collective effort unless all involved consent to a decision, but that would only be possible in a voluntary, individualist society.

In history this debate has been present in the fight over the technological “revolution”, whether the government should be allowed to survey internet/telecommunications between citizens. Legal rights and surveillance surrounding technology have been important parts of the collectivist vs. individualist debate.

An example of this debate from today’s time I would say, has been the whole Covid-19 situation. Just a few years ago, the world’s governments-imposed lockdowns, reset the economy by shutting down small businesses, expanded global corporations and implemented cashless payments into everything. Many collectivists were in favor of these acts, as the individualists’ view promoted opposition to this, due to the intrusions to choose, and free will. And while the debate against the choice to wear masks in public or no have ended a while ago, people still argue how mandatory taking the vaccine should be. The “health passports” that have been in the works would become a great tool of the collective, surveying and controlling the access to movement, employment and education just based off someone’s health. As an individualist, I hope these never become fully implemented, and that there should be a choice to make on whether you’ll allow the government to jab you with vaccines.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #32: The Dangers of The Cold War

Writing assignment: In what senses was the world a dangerous place in the 1960s and 1970s?

The world has always been a dangerous place, I think I should start with that statement. Nowadays we are faced with disease, the threat of war, dangerously cultural schisms, drug abuse and crime. This is effectively the same in the 60’s and 70’s, might I add! History, as they say, has a habit of repeating itself.

But just HOW was it (the world) dangerous? Consider the worldviews of the time: Karl Marc was known for stating religion as a drug, but progressives in the United States (during the Wilson administration) called school a drug, as it kept everyone satisfied and obedient. Public school education became more extensive, students became delayed from the workforce for social engineering. (Europe was *less affected by this, but still felt the heat of such a changing world stage)

Assassination and terrorism would be a good example to bring up. The Kennedy assassination of 1963 struck fear and suspicion into the population of the U.S. (and all those that were influenced by the U.S., which back in the 60’s and 70’s was the ENTIRE WORLD), losing the state much confidence. Racial conflict and cultural revolution was prevalent all across the world, Asia was facing multiple Communist/Socialist revolutions (that all escalated into catastrophic chess-game wars between the Soviets and ‘States) such as the Vietnam War. Chemical warfare was growing as a destructive industry, such as the Agent Orange project, the aforementioned chemical was sprayed on Vietnamese forests to wipe out vegetation, the dangerous toxins ravaged anything exposed to it and killed millions. Its dangers were only admitted in the 90s.

Drugs brought terror to “the homefront”, with the CIA’s failed truth serum LSD, used for the hallucinogenic elements that were discovered, so people found a market for it. Alternatively, there was a revival of free-market thought, so overall a widespread confusion of the American stance on society and politics.

Overall, while the world only had different dangers, Earth, will all its countries and different people, will always have some kind of conflict.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #29: The Revenge in WWII

Written assignment: (250 words min.) In what ways did revenge figure into the strategies of the countries fighting in World War II?

Greetings all! This week I have finally finished my studies of the actual wartime events that comprised World War II. It was a time of barbarism, where the war business truly thrived, and the populations of all those countries involve were engulfed in fear and anger towards the other sides. Out of all the stories behind World War II, the motif of revenge is present throughout it all. Near the end of the war, revenge was the intent of many a country, considering the events of recent World War I. Because of this, no allies were legitimately on friendly terms between each other. The Soviets wanted revenge on the Germans for what they’d done in earlier battles, so they closed in on Berlin battle front with the other allied powers, like the United States and Great Britain. Raids and expulsions of citizens from opposing countries were frequent. When the allies were bombing civilian cities of Japan, you can believe that the memory of Pearl Harbor was in all their minds. Around 1945, central European countries captured citizens who were German and put them in labor camps, executed them, or drove them out, and although this was not a fighting tactic or strategy, it was absolutely a form of revenge. It’s also important to mention the French’s “purification” of Jews, prosecuting (alleged) fascists, they had executions and used public for those who were suspected in France to have had relations with Germans. This was all merely a tip of the iceberg that was the hate for each other prevalent by the government’s propaganda and bombing of civilians.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #28: The Brutality of WWII

Written assignment: Did World War II become more brutal as time went on? In what ways? Was the brutality on only one side?

Greetings all! This week I do believe I’ve gotten to the very height of my studies of World War II, and based off what I’ve read, it was incredibly brutal.

But did it become *more* brutal as time went on? And to answer that question, I would say, yes, it got more and more brutal/depressing/insane as time went on. First of all, as the war went on, more and more countries got involved, resulting in grander and larger death tolls, as well as more POWs. From a technological standpoint, humanity found bigger and “better” ways to kill each other: superior guns, bigger ballistics, faster/stronger ships and planes, the Atomic Bomb. (Not to say the war only created technology intended to hurt, as many useful and peaceful inventions, such as new medicines, were also invented because of the World Wars)

The brutality was not only targeted on one side I must state. While The Third Reich, Italy and the Japanese Empire did unforgettable deeds (from purging minority groups to employing kamikaze tactics), the allied Britain, Soviet Russia and United States were responsible for some war crimes of their own (bombing civilians, starvation tactics). All that must be said about both sides involved is that, on the battlefield and back at ‘HQ, those who strike violence upon others can never be a true hero.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #27: The Escalation of WWII

Written assignment: (250 words min.) From the readings and lectures, in what sense did World War II become more “global” during its first two or two-and-a-half years?

Greetings everyone! This week I have studied all about the beginning of the actual fighting of World War II, including how the United States got involved on both Pacific and European fronts, as well as Blitzkrieg and (the lesser known) conflict between Finland the USSR: “The Winter War”.

World War II began (Well, was encouraged to begin) with the German invasion of Poland. The Winter War of 1939 showed the Soviets Union invading Finland, and at that point Finland joined with Germany. Breaking the German-Soviet nonaggression pact with invasion, the Germans pushed the eastern front of the war into Russia. Britain, France, and the Soviet Union were the main countries in the Allied powers at this time, fighting against the Axis powers, (which were Japan, Italy & Germany) but France was almost immediately occupied (like Poland) by Blitzkrieg.
Now, I feel that World War II became more “global” during its first two or two-and-a-half years of conflict because of the escalation of the Japanese Empire’s tenacity and the U.S. losing all “neutrality” and joining the war/being attacked by Germany and Japan. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the president of the U.S. at the time, decried that the United States would be a “neutral” country during this war, but FDR bended the definitions of “neutral”. Anti-interventionist parties tried to stop FDR’s inevitable plan to join the war but were unsuccessful. Despite what Roosevelt said in his neutrality speech, he had always intended to join in eventually but was waiting for the right time, once the other countries had allied and joined in the war. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, adding another reason for the United States to join. Hitler joined into this attack, giving the U.S. two very convenient reasons to go to war by the beginning of the 40’s.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #26: The “Interwar” Period

Written assignment (250 words min.): Considering information in the readings and lectures, what problems from World War I helped contribute to the outbreak of World War II?
Greetings to everyone reading this! This week I have been learning (under the guest lecturer Hunt Tooley) about the period of time between World War 1 and World War 2 known as “the Interwar Period”, where Europe (and the whole Earth really)’s political and economic scene changed drastically, Fascism and Communism taking over a majority of the political powers, many small Balkan countries like Poland brewing tension, Japan gaining a level of aggression against China as well as all the other island nations in the Pacific, and the Great Depression hit everyone hard (especially on the country of Germany).

Now, I mentioned the Great Depression hitting everyone hard financially, and that would include all the unstable government that were overtaken by the Totalitarians that were Adolf Hitler for Germany, or Mussolini for Italy. This period of time of the 20’s-30’s are often stated to be a “Broken World”. It was a sad era for liberty. In economics, there was inflation and instability while in turn nationalism and war collectivism grew, which contributed to the start of WWII.
The Paris Peace at the end of World War I was made without consulting the leaders of any of the losing countries, as a result, the five major countries that participated in World War I simply distributed territory as they pleased while writing the treaty.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #25: The Russian Revolution

(1) What are the primary differences discussed in this week’s videos between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism? (2) Historian Richard Pipes wrote, “Soviet Russia was the first society in history to outlaw law.” What did he mean by that? (3) What was the Russian government under Lenin like? What kinds of tasks did it attempt to achieve?

Greetings to everyone reading, this week was entirely dedicated to reading of the Russian Revolution, starting in the time of WW1, by the Bolsheviks.

First of all, what ARE the primary differences between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism? The main focus for standard Marxism is that capitalism should be overthrown and replaced with socialism, communism being the ultimate form of socialism but less ‘natural’ to achieve. Leninism adds to that by applying the historical materialism of Marxism to real life methods. Main difference: Leninism had a unique trait of the working class/proletariat overthrowing the high class/bourgeoisie being overseen by so-called intellectuals (the Communists), a third-party planning and running the proletariat’s projects. This was less of a Socialist system, more one revolving around a “vanguard”, where ideals are fully achieved & enforced by dictatorship.

2nd, historian Richard Pipes wrote: “Soviet Russia was the first society in history to outlaw law”, but what he meant about that was that, during the Bolshevik revolution (under direction by Lenin), overthrew the law and government, creating its own opposite government, thereby “outlawing” the law of the land.

Finally, Lenin’s government accomplished (some of but not entirely) the following deeds:

• They murdered the royal family, not just Tsar Nicholas II but every one of his relatives (to prove to their followers that this new system would be forever, and there’d be no going back to the Tsarist capitalism).
• Took control of the production capabilities of industrial cities and labor forces (which ultimately shot their economy in the foot).
• Enforced propaganda masked as democratic works (used not to eliminate the terror of the populace but instead to justify it).
• Abolished many churches, Orthodox & Catholic (turning them into public warehouses and bathrooms).

All of this was in the name of “progress”, and anyone who opposed the Communist government in these acts were treated (at best) as buffoons who couldn’t see reason or “think forward for the future” and “reeducated”, or (at worst) outright killed.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #24: Wilson’s 14 Points & The Pavement of WW2

(3) Explain five of the major ideas outlined in Wilson’s Fourteen Points.

(4) How have some historians argued that the peace settlement at the end of World War I helped pave the way for World War II?

Greetings all! This week for the Ron Paul Curriculum’s 11th grade Western Civilization class, I have been reading up on “The Great War” WW1. Today I’m going to be reviewing the ideas behind U.S. president Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”, and how WW1 ultimately paved the way for the much worse, bloodier, conflict of World War 2.

So, what are the Fourteen Points of Woodrow Wilson? Well, (1) here’s a list:

• Open covenants of peace and transparent diplomacy.
• Absolute freedom of the seas.
• The removal of economic and trade barriers.
• An end to arms races.
• National self-determination to figure in adjustment of colonial claims.
• Evacuation of all Russian territory.
• Evacuation and restoration of Belgium.
• All French territory restored.
• Italian frontiers adjusted.
• Austria-Hungary given “opportunity to autonomous development.”
• Rumania, Serbia, Montenegro evacuated and given independence.
• Turkish portion of the Ottoman Empire should become sovereign; nations under Turkish rule should become autonomous; Dardanelles should be open to all.
• Independent Poland with access to the sea should be created.
• A “general association of nations” should be formed to guarantee political independence and territorial integrity to “great and small states alike.”

As you can see, a good 1st theme seen through these points, was the attempt to eliminate the immediate causes for future wars. (Imperialism, restricting trades, arms races and disregarding nationalism) His 2nd theme would be to free sea travel. You see, during the war Great Britain and Germany both committed some heinous acts against sea travel (laying mines for indifferent naval blockades or using submarines to sink neutral and enemy ships alike). His 3rd theme was against Colonial Claims, he believed all the colonial powers involved in the war should begin taking the wants of their colonized into consideration when going about their empires. 4th, *Disarmament*, during the great war (due to multiple arms races), weapons technology had progressed to what could be considered monstrous just 10 years before the war! Poison gas, tanks, machine guns, you name it! Naturally these Fourteen Points made an effort to reduce the arms of these now-peaceful nations. Finally, I would say his 5th theme was to open diplomacy between the nations. All the politics behind the first world war were quite cloak-and-dagger.

Now, did Woodrow Wilson succeed at any of the 5 themes behind his Fourteen Points? That’s an entirely different point.

Now, after the war, a conference was held called “The Paris Peace”. A settlement was made behind closed doors by the four largest European powers: The U.S., France, Great Britain and Italy (the victors of the war). Interestingly all the other nations involved with the war had no say in this conference, and could not debate any decisions made. The issue which some have argued created tensions leading to the next World War was the inconsistent application of the self-determination principles of all countries involved in the war, not just the “Big Four”. Going back to Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, he intended to give minorities their own nations, but he ended up splitting minorities even further. Most importantly, Germany had no choice in how its land was split, and this ultimately led to (what historians say) the ignition of the Second War.

(1): https://www.thoughtco.com/the-fourteen-points-3310117#:~:text=The%20summarized%20Fourteen%20Points%20included%3A%201%20Open%20covenants,Belgium.%208%20All%20French%20territory%20restored.%20More%20items source of the list

RPC Western Civ II Essay #21: German Unification and the Second Industrial Revolution

Assignment: Answer the 2 following questions:

(2) What were the key steps in the process of German unification?

(3) Discuss the significance of two of the major innovations of the Second Industrial Revolution.

Greetings all! This week I’ve been learning about the Italian and German unification, the “Eastern question” (AKA the Crimean war and falling off of the Ottoman Empire) and the Second coming of the Industrial Revolution. Onwards!

The unification of Germany was a complex process that took place in the middle of the 19th century. It began with the leadership of Prussia under Otto von Bismarck, who led victorious campaigns against Denmark in 1864 and Austria in 1866, consolidating Prussian power. The kingdom of Prussia formed a Northern union with several small local German states “the North German Confederation”, leading to the Franco-Prussian war (galvanizing even more German states) and then ended in 1871 when The German Reich proclaimed. (the constitution for The German Empire being written out in March that year)

Next, what was significant about the Second Industrial Revolution? I would say most significant was the streamlining and of cheap, dependable steel. Refining machines and other new inventions improve quality and lower the cost of the process. Steel, rather than iron, make skyscrapers possible. Additionally, there was the growth of the Chemical industry, which lead to the creation of photo film, cellophane, plastics & colorful clothing.

RPC Western Civ II Essay #20: The Weaknesses of Marxism + The Views of Herbert Spencer.

(1) Discuss two weak points in the views of Karl Marx, and explain what’s wrong with them.

(2) What were Herbert Spencer’s views, as you encountered them in the reading for this week? Does he deserve to be called a “Social Darwinist”?

Hey everyone! Time for another Western Civ essay. This week I’ve been studying a small portion of “Social Darwinism”, and I’ve begun my learning about the concept of Marxism (by Karl Marx).

Now, my first weak point of Marxism is the labor theory of value. This presumption assumes that all objects of capital are worth the same. A t-shirt is equal in value to a cup of coffee. This is flawed because that simply IS NOT true. The rules of supply and demand make it impossible for everything to equal the same value, because of surpluses (on say, t-shirts) and scarcities (on coffee). He neglects the passing of time. ome, like the employers would rather make money by spending on a workers paycheck and good now, and gaining more money when the products sells, if the product sells at all, which is a risk. The worker is in turn trading labor for payment. As long as the worker and employer voluntarily make this transaction, it is not inherently exploitation as Marx deduces. The worker’s burden is labor, and the ‘capitalist’s’ burden is time exchange. People can value things differently, *Karl*! One person will value the other part of these exchanges.

Next, who was Herbert Spencer? Being an English polymath active as a philosopher and anthropologist, who lived from 1820 to 1903, he was a Libertarian smeared with the title of “social Darwinist”. He truly believed in the helping his fellow man, whereas the concepts of Social Darwinism would’ve let the weak and poor die out for “social progress”. He writes that the “desire to command is essentially a barbarous desire” because it “implies an appeal to force” and is immoral. History gave him the title of “Social Darwinist” simply because he was *most* focused with the ideals of free will and liberty from the state.