Why Communism is Defective, by Cal Reeves

When people hear the word “Communism,” a few things come to mind, Karl Marx, dictatorship, war, and innocent deaths. It is associated with these types of terms because these radical socialist governments usually do not work and result in horrible situations. Real communism as far as Karl Marx is concerned, is supposed to be a moneyless, classless, stateless social order, with common ownership for means of production, which in theory eventually leads to an almost modernized anarchist government. Then, everything in the country can just run and grow off of one another. For some reason he thought that dictatorship was the first stage to setting all of this into motion. Many Communist countries have not been able to get passed this first stage.

Today in our world there have been and there are a handful of communist countries. Many countries have fallen, while some still exist. China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam are the most popular Communist governments today. The most famous fallen country is the USSR. Many others have also fallen in Eastern Europe for many reasons like economic crashes, starvation, and collectivism. In a most of these countries, the government plays large roles in what people do in their everyday life. Which I would say is the first reason why communist countries generally do not last. Because some say the government that governs the best, is the one that governs the least. When governments become regulative in the lives of the people, it takes away from the freedom and privacy of its people. In return, it can cause many things like distrust in the government, and rebellion. Which history has showed then can cause innocent deaths of the people. Innocent deaths are one of the many ways these governments put fear in the people to make them do what they want, and make sure they do not ask any types of questions.

Like I mentioned before they all operate under a pure dictatorship. Which generally results in the country going in the direction of the person running it. There is also no congress, parliament, or any type of voting causing the people to not have any type of say what happens in their country. If the leader wants to go to war or invade another country, then that’s just what happens. This can cause other people from different countries to have much disgust for these communist countries because their main goals are generally to invade, expand, and spread communism. This can also cause the country to generate what little money they have away from the important things like education, and jobs for its entire people, which in the end could result in a better economy, and lower death rates because people will become educated and know how to fix major problems in the country.

Another main reason this system struggles is because the all the people have to provide for the county. Everything that they have to do is for the country. Agriculture and industry for example are two of the things that are government controlled. The people that run these companies and farms can barely afford to pay for anything because almost all of their products they have to just give to the government. Which can generally cause poverty and large famine. In the 1930’s and 40’s, many farmers in the Soviet Union died from starvation because they would farm crops then to government would come in and take what they thought was theirs, and feed there armies or export it to generate money for themselves.

           

Works Cited

www.advoidingthevoid.worldpress.com  

"What’s the Deal With Syria?" by Megan Assman

            If you have turned your TV or radio to any news station lately, there is a good chance that you have heard at least a mention of the crisis in Syria.  I have been extremely intrigued about what all the fuss is about so when my professor in my Governments of the World class said that we had a chance to do a blog assignment, I decided that it would be a great opportunity to learn more about an important historical event that is currently happening. I had heard bits and pieces of the story, but I feel that unless a topic is not thoroughly researched, an opinion cannot be formed.

As Syria marks the one-year anniversary of the country’s uprising against the regime of President Bashar Assad, an estimated 7,500 people have died since the regime launched a brutal crackdown on protesters. Although Syrian activists have improved their protesting techniques of leaking photos and videos of the violence, horrible deaths, torture, and broken families to the mainstream media in the outside world, Syria’s future is still extremely uncertain.

Syria was a latecomer to the Arab Spring, a series of protests, demonstrations, and riots in the Arab world that began in December of 2010.  When Syria initially joined the Arab Spring movement the protesters did not demand that President Bashar Assad resign from his position, but instead they focused on voicing their opinion on their lack of basic freedoms that the citizens of the country were experiencing.  Security forces responded to these protests with excessively brutal force.  They shot tear gas and live ammunition into the crowd and ended up killing and severely wounding several protesters.  As anger and unrest grew due to the deaths of civilian’s, protests spread to other cities.  Assad, trying to calm the citizens, offered a series of new policies.  Officials who participated in violence would be fired, some political prisoners would be released, and the overall welfare of the citizens would be better epitomized.  The regime, however, tried to claim its innocence and blame foreign agents for the unrest in Syria.  

The violence in Syria reached a whole new level at the end of 2011.  As many as 40 people were being killed every day and the outrage continued to grow against security forces.  Loosely organized members of the Free Syrian Army staged attacks against security forces.  In December and January, two separate bombings took place in Syria’s capital, Damascus, and dozens of people were killed.  The regime blamed Al Qaeda in an effort to get public support of the regime’s crackdown and they did not stop there.  In February 2012, Assad’s regime launched an assault on the city of Homs.  Hundreds of innocent people were massacred over the course of several weeks as bombs and rockets rained down on the city.

After the events in Homs, many believed the country was destined for a civil war.  The majority of Syria’s population are Sunni Muslims, but there are also a significant number of Christian, Shia, and Alawi groups. President Assad just happens to be part of the Alawi group and Alawites “just happen” to hold many key positions in government. 

International response to the terrible events in Syria has been harsh to say the least.  President Barack Obama has called on President Assad to step down from his position and end the crisis and the chief of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, has described what happened to the citizens of Homs as “unacceptable before humanity.”  The President of France, Nicholas Sarkozy, has called Assad a murderer and many other leaders across the world have said the same.  The U.N. Security Council proposed a resolution to the problem by resignation of President Assad and 13 of the Security Council’s 15 members approved, but this decision was vetoed by China and Russia. 

I am interested to see what the future holds for Syria.  Writing this blog piece has been an awesome way for me to learn more about the crisis in Syria through research and I hope that it has been an interesting read for you as well.

Sources:

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/09/05/understanding-the-crisis-in-syria/

http://www.usatoday.com/interactive/2759693/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23863012

 

Territorial Arrangement, by Christopher Michels

Right off the bat the topic of Territorial arrangement of political systems seemed interesting to me. Being a History major with a focus on United States History, this is one topic that I at least know the basics about. Today, because the power has already been split thanks to our founding fathers, the idea of territorial arrangement seems like there is a simple solution. However, if one looks into American History, even the founding fathers were pretty evenly split on how to approach this tough arrangement and had many quarrels. This is proved through historical documents such as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Although they reached a decision and split the government between state to state and national system, it didn’t end there.

Even today in the United States, which is a country that many other countries look to when searching for democracy or leadership, is still trying to figure out where the national government ends and the state governments begin. And if a well-established Democracy such as America still cannot quite get it right, this proves how difficult it could be to other countries trying to obtain what we have, rich or poor, such as Ethiopia, according to John T. Ishiyama. (page 209) I have the opinion of many, and that is that whatever the combinations and distribution of power, each has its pros and cons. This has proven to be true in my own country, and I am sure it can be said of other countries as well. Ishiyama points out that there are Three major systems, and they are Unitary, Federal, and Confederal. Each is striking and works in its own way, but each can also lead to problems such as a thirst for power, or a failure to get anything done.

Unitary System is the most popular choice among countries. One of these countries is China. Pros and cons quickly come to mind when China's name gets dropped. A major pro is that laws are passed more quickly, more effectively, and everyone gets treated rather than it differing territory to territory. Because there is less time for debating, there could be advantages such as a stable economy. However, individuality can be lost. A thought that comes to mind is the famous photo of one man standing in front of a tank before he gets trampled. Whether or not this is the direct effect of a Unitarian philosophy, it is a great analogy of how individual voices are all but lost. I can see how a unitary system could be effective for other countries, but I think it could never work for America for the simple reason of size. Countries with a unitary system such as France and China are not nearly as big as the United States, and due to the fact that America is split into 50 states alone proves how difficult the task could be. This problem especially rings true for problems such as the court system in America. Although in many countries with unitary systems still have smaller governments, their power is still given by the main government, which can lead to sticky situations, inequality, and questionable leadership.

A system that hits closer to home is, of course, the Federal System. This is the system that America has chosen to adopt, and it too, just as the unitary system, has proven to be effective and ineffective in different areas. The point I made before on size of the country being a factor in a certain system can be backed up by the mere fact that both America and Russia, two of the largest countries in the world, are Federal. A major problem with a federal system is the problem of overlapping. Because this is considered a blog essay, my opinion is pivotal to get my thought across. My thoughts when it comes to overlapping is simple, I agree that it is a problem. Though I think problems in this Country do get solved, I find overlapping to be extremely confusing. An example that comes to mind is gay marriage. Right now state governments are treating the problem differently, but like many large issues from the past, it is only a matter of time before it goes to the Supreme Court. This begs the question of who has more power, and if states should be able to differ on key issues. This same issue, however, proves how the Federal system is effective.

Homosexuals can be compared to other struggling minorities from the past. They are fighting for, in their words, “equal rights”.  The reason I put that phrase in quotation marks is because a major battle that has and is continuing to break out is the definition of rights. Some do not see the rights of homosexuals the same way they see the rights of men and women, different races, or even different age groups. The LGBT community, however, sees this problem as a basic problem of their human rights not being met. The reason freedom of speech and groups such as the LGBT community can have a voice as loud as they do is in part, because of the Federal System the United States adopted. Quick responsiveness is due to Federal System, for it does not take as long for a voice to be heard if the government is split into smaller groups.

The third system is a Confederal System, which to be honest, is the system I know the least about. The farthest my knowledge goes is the Civil War, when the South called itself the Confederacy. Three of the four examples Ishiyama gave when naming Confederal Systems are no longer the systems used today, and the fourth is the European Union, which is not that old. The major con I have gathered from reading the textbook is how weak they are. It is much harder for a smaller government within a larger one to have its voice heard. Confederal systems, in my opinion, seem, at best, to have only one pro, and that is to annoy the larger government and be part of the veto system in order for a problem to be looked at. The problem with this, is, depending on the Confederal systems size and problem, they can be put to a halting stop, such as in the Civil War.

Territorial Arrangements of Government is fascinating for the simple reason that no two are the same, but often times, they have worked for hundreds of years. This is important to look at when comparing governments, because it can give insight to how governments work and operate. Personally, im a fan of the Federal system, but then again, I am extremely biased. I don’t think a Unitarian System is horrible either, for it is proven to be effective. I am just glad the confederal system in America did not succeed after they succeeded.

Source: Comparative Politics: Principles of democracy and democratization. By John T. Ishiyama