Marx on historical materialism

The idea of communism has been greatly understated and defamed by our popular culture. Only by understanding Marx's notion of historical materialism can one have a grasp of when the communist revolution is supposed to take place. Marx talks about capitalist system and how it is built into the system spending money on R&D to make the means of production more and more productive. And a time is going to come when because of all this research and improvement, when supply is going to get ahead of demand. But at this time, there is going to be an imbalance of spending power as the majority of people are simply not going to have money to buy stuff. It is then when the communist revolution is supposed to take place in the form of labor unions coming together. The problem of supply and demand still hasn't been met in the modern world. Thus, any nation trying to become communist is simply acting in futile. It is going to fail.

Ferdinand and Inquisition

History of Inquisition is really terrible and it goes on to show how the ugly aspects of human nature can show up at any point in time if the circumstances permit for it. Ferdinand wanted control of not only political power but religious power as well. It was by attaining total control of mind and body he thought he would be able to control the spanish empire, and it was a super power at one point in time. He created the Inquisition to find and destroy the heretics. And Inquisition operated on roman rules where testimony obtained through torture was more reliable one. They picked up Jews from small villages and even if they had slightly different way of behaving from the norm they were tortured until they said they were indeed not christian, perhaps only to stop them from torturing, but this resulted in public burning. This mindset of total submission also effected Latin America that at one point in time were part of the Spanish empire. It was good fit for some parts of the Latin Americas such as the Aztec Empire, which itself was built on Mayan empire, public sacrifices were a common aspect of this civilization. Another idea that was entertained in the lecture is the myth that if you have democratic values in one country the neighboring nations are also going to adopt such viewpoints. How many latin american nations can we name today that are truly democratic. Not many.

Ottoman Empire and Mustafa Kemal

This specific portion of history I am least familiar with, but the calibar and contribution of Mustafa Kemal (Kemal Ataturk) cannot be denied and is worth learning about. The Otttoman Empire was glories during the middle ages but like any other grand empire, it declined as well and by the 20th century it was a shell of its former self. But a man by the name of Mustafa Kemal really turned the Ottoman Empire around. European powers tried to defeat this Empire but they were unsuccessful. Kemal was able to rewrite the treaty agreement with them and the nation of Turkey was given independence. While he was in power he also took efforts to secularize the nation such as forcing the women not to cover their faces and dress like westerns. In just one decade he was able to turn around the face of Turkey and because of his efforts, Turkey is one of the most stable and modernized nation in the middle east. And Mustafa is still recognized for what he was able to accomplish as he is revered as the father of the nation today.

Rise of Islam

It's fascinating to read about the Iranian empire when it was governed by religion other than Islam. The empire that stood most ferociously against the Roman empire was the one that was governed by religion of prophet Zarathustra, who taught in believing in Aruha Mazda, the one true God. In this doctrine, the world was clearly divided into Good and evil, and choosing between these two meant how your soul is going to be judged during the judgment day. Still, no one would have thought that between the roman empire and the Iranian empire, the dominant doctrine would be something that is once again, different from these two. It was the doctrine of Islam, taught by prophet Muhammad during the 7th century. This religion gained a lot of ground very quickly partially because it was able to bring together tribes that were initially in war against each other. One fascinating aspect of Islam is that there is no distinction made between religion and state, for they are both supposed to be governed by god. After all, in Islam, there is no god but god. Also, Islam saw itself as being the next step from Christianity in that Muhammad was the next and last prophet to come from the line of Moses and Jesus. Soon the Byzantine empire would go and conquer even Constantinople, which is konwn as Istanbul today.

Constantine and christianity

I don't really buy into Prof. Rufus Fears thesis that throughout history, the defining moments are the ones that are created by decisions of single individuals but in the case of Constantine, this really appears to be the case. There were many cult religions like Christianity that were about saving one's soul and praying to one god. In fact, the story of Dionysus, the son of Zeus, is eerily similar to that of Jesus. Dionysus was son of Zeus and born of a mortal mother. He was killed but he resurrected. And his followers consumed his blood in the form of wine in order to be saved. Christians in particular began to be prosecuted in the 1st and 2nd century by the roman empire because this religion proposed freedom of conscience. It was because under Christianity, one only prayed to one god and serving the roman gods was prohibited. As the roman empire was facing problems in the middle east and with the Germanic tribes, Christians served as perfect scapegoats. It was because they were not obeying the roman gods that we are losing all these wars, they said. While this religion was almost extinct, the arrival of Constantine changed all that. During one crucial battle, Constantine had a vision of Christ and that he had been chosen to spread Christianity. He was able to surprisingly defeat his opponent and was inspired by the vision he had. Perhaps he had some political motivations as well for selecting Christianity as a state religion. For Romans, all these different gods led to the same divine path, but for Christians, there was only one right path. And by creating the capital Constantine of the roman empire and making himself head of the church, Constantine had become another apostle of the god. He had become a religious figure as well as a political and military figure. As soon as Christianity became the dominant religion, orthodoxy came in full force and if you were not practicing Christianity the right way, you were sinning. Christianity went from being persecuted to the persecutors.

The Romans would never had imagined that 1000 years later, their greatest contribution to the future societies was not their aqueducts or their laws, but two religions, Christianity and Islam. Perhaps our contribution for the societies 1000 years later would not be our love for democracy or freedom but our worshiping of the idol known as Ronald McDonald whose shrines we had built all over the world.

Fall of roman empire

The roman empire fell because of two main reasons, its incapability to deal with the problem of middle east and with the Germanic tribes. As rome had become bigger and badder, many others wanted to emulate it, but deem down all wished for its downfall. For there was nothing to admire about its empire. And even the citizens of the roman empire were not nationalistic any more. After the great rulers had left, the bureaucracy had become more bloated and corrupt. Rulers like Augustus determined that the problem of the middle east (the Iranian empire) and that of the Germanic tribes is best dealt with by limiting our empire. And even though this was a free market economy, the hostilities between the superpowers kept rising and eventually it came to a boiling point. War erupted and the superpowers went to war. The roman empire eventually won many of the middle eastern territories but it had expanded itself too much. And over the century or two, the Iranian empire politically came in the hands of new people, who felt that it was in the will of God that they had risen to power, and that they are now going to fight against the roman empire. And they did, and it was this new empire that had been plagued by various diseases and loss of nationalistic spirit and bloated bureaucracy that lost against the Iranians.

Rome and the middle east

The relationship between the roman empire and the middle east is intriguing because of two reasons; first, it were the Jews that were creating problems for the dominant political power of its day in the middle east, and secondly that the way Rome dealt with these particular problems was fairly secular. The region of Judea can be taken as an example. This was an area with strategic importance, because grain from Egypt shipped through here and into the roman empire; and grain was like oil for the roman empire. But Judea was highly multi ethnic, and it was a pain trying to solve these multi ethic disputes. The way Augustus approached this problem was by having governors who would enforce Jewish laws but also try to solve local disputes as locally as possible. Rome made lots of adjustments in trying to cope with what satisfied and did not satisfy ethnic groups of Judea. Jerusalem for example, was not made into a capital because it was sacred for Jewish people. The roman coins distributed in Judea did not had the face of the king because it would have violated the ten commandments for Jews. The taxes paid by Jews went to the Jerusalem temple rather than to the treasury of Rome. Still, there were problems. Passover was one of the holy days when even the most supportive Jew of Roman empire dreamt of having Israeli nation. There was also a group called Zealots, who committed terrorist acts in order to entice the entire Jewish community revolt against the Romans. The story about Jesus and how he was dealt by the Roman empire is also interesting. Sanhedrin, a group that was made up of 71 leading Jewish leaders, demanded death of Jesus because he had committed a sin, but Pontius Pilate told them that he had not committed any sort of crime under Jewish law. Ultimately he caved in partially because it was a local matter and partially because Tiberius, the successor to Augustus, was paranoid and wanted to suppress any signs of revolt in his kingdom. If pilate had gone against the Sanhedrin, then a revolt might have erupted.

So the relationship between Rome and middle east was certainly shaky. And this relationship became worse as newer dictators that emerged on the scene were not as witty and sharp as their predecessors and tried to rule middle east by dominating them rather than trying to compromise with them. This was also the time that christianity was coming into existence and the timing was not that good.

Augustus and Julius Caesar

Caesar and his adopted sun, Augustus, were the two men that carried the republican empire to being most prosperous and peaceful in history. Edward Gibbons, a historian from 1700's, even called the 1st and 2nd century AD in republican empire as being the most peaceful time in human history. It's interesting that when Rome was a republic, so many wars were fought but when it became an empirical empire, there was much prosperity and peace in the kingdom. There were opportunities for those who were at the lower class to buy their freedom and by investing properly, even becoming millionaires. And their sons could then even become senators if they wished. This was an age of creativity as men like Galen contributed much to biology and Ptolemy to geography. Rome contributed a lot to art and architecture as well. There were philanthropists who contributed to empire by building gymnasiums and schools for their communities. People could still be politically active at the local empire, though the major political decisions were still made by King. And these leaders demonstrated moderation when after losing a few battles, decided that it would not be worth conquering the Germanic tribes and expanding there. Similar moderation was demonstrated when the Empire did not expand beyond Sudan in African continent. Romans had their gods, but they were still a pluralist society. Citizens were allowed to worship any other god if they so choose. The empire understood that although the citizens don't have much political freedom, if they can grab on to illusions of being free, they won't complain much. Plus, this was a prosperous time after all. It was easy to not to miss any of the political liberties. A culture of multiculturalism and creativity isn't something that is unique to American democracy after all; such conditions are also possible under an Empire.

Rise of roman republic

Rome was another instance of history where people could not have guessed that this was going to be the birthplace of new superpower of the world, but it did. Rome was a true republic as it had a democratic branch, executive branch, and an aristocratic branch. When in war no one could have guessed that this was a republic, for the executive branch acted like monarchy, but the aristocratic branch had the power of the purse. Romans were democratic, but they were very war like. There were very few moments of time were Rome was not in war. Rome's army was made up of citizens and there was a very strong nationalistic spirit among them. But as Rome grew and continued to expand its empire, the constitution that was created for a small nation state began to show its weaknesses. The situation in politics became the same as it is in the U.S. now. Senators relied on donations made by merchants for political campaigns, and in return were requested to pass laws in favor of these companies. Citizens were better off then they were before, but the gulf between normal citizens and rich were getting wider and wider. They could not maintain an army of voluntary Roman citizens because the nationalistic spirit had worn off. The Romans had reached a critical period where they had to decide whether they are willing to give up being an empire and return to their old ways in order to bear the responsibility of being a republican nation or whether they are going to get a monarch to do all the political heavy lifting for them and in return, lose the ability to have any say in the political affairs. Roman political system at this point in time was frighteningly similar to that of U.S.

Alexander the greatest

After hearing about the vision that Alexander had for his empire, I am sad that his dream never came into fruition. This is one man in history that I feel was truly beyond any moral system that he had encountered. It should come as no surprise that this prince from Macedonia that an equally great a teacher, Aristotle, someone who was about functional utility of ideas first and their metaphysical implications later. But even Aristotle had his biases, for one he believed that Greeks were truly superior people over any other culture whom they referred to as barbarians. But not Aristotle. Just barely 20 when becoming a ruler due to assassination of his father King philip, Alexander begin to create an empire with a strategical viewpoint in mind. He understood that the best way to rule over cultures like Egypt and Persia is to be like them. He took advice from Oracle of Amun Ra and acted as a god king among the Egyptians. After conquering strategically over much of the known world, his aspirations on how to run the Empire were even more beautiful. He wanted mass import and export of people from different cultures so that true intermingling of ideas can exist in his empire. He ruled his Empire not from Macedonia, but from Babylon. He married people from different cultures and creed together, to further his agenda of intermingling of people. There were people who opposed him, but when they crossed the line, they were disposed of as well. The man was a visionary. And its sad that a King like him died because of sickness, and at the age of 33.

Thucydides and Alcibiades

Thucydides, which by the way, is an awesome name for a historian, talked about how the athenian democracy came to an end. And just as birth of Athenian empire was relevant to how U.S. is now, the end of the Athenian empire should also be given as much attention by contemporary americans if not more. To put things in simple way, it ended due to politics. Alcibiades, nephew of Pericles, was probably seen as destined for great things just like his uncle. But while his uncle played a role in starting up Peloponnesian wars and the war ended by signing a peace treaty, Alcibiades, a favorite student of Socrates, led his city to another war that would mark doom for the nation. This war was supposed to be a preemptive war, attack sparta and her allies before they have a chance to attack athens, though the information regarding Sparta's intent was sparse. Because the committee had doubts about Alcibiades' intent, they distributed the power to control military among three individuals. But the idea of check and balances can hinder operations if it is not applied correctly. Rather than having a simple chain of command they created a horizontal chain of command. The power was distributed between Alcibiades, Nicias, who was against the war, and Lamachus, the war tested general.

What happened next was amusing and depressing at the same time. While on homeland there were religion and sex scandals, on the war front, Sicily, which was supposed to be in a civil war, was neutral when it came to Athens Spartan conflict and would not let them board. A year passed and they kept sailing around Sicily still contemplating what to do and on the other hand Sparta caught wind of Athens intentions. Alcibiades when called back to homeland to face his charges fled battlefield and joined with none other than Sparta, telling them this would be best time to strike athens. Lamachus dies in a one of the battles and Nicias, who was against the war in the first place, is now commanding all the military. Sparta sends troops in sicily and instead of withdrawing, Athens decide to keep continuing the war. This is the trademark of democratic nation. When they are in a war, they are in it for the long haul. The end result was complete decimation of Athenian military. So the lesson from this portion of history is that beware of whenever a democratic nation enters a war. Resources from the nation are going to be diverted to military for a long long time. And unless there is some charismatic statesman in charge of the nation, the fickle public opinion is ultimately going to hurt the nation economically, culturally, and politically.