The Fall of Communism

The rise of Communism in Russia was very similar to that of Communism in China. Both overthrew age old dynasties, and threw the country into civil war between those who opposed communism (nationalists, those who wanted democracy, monarchists) and communists. In each regime, propaganda and a personality cult revolving around one dictator were key tools. Mao and Stalin were god-like to their people. Each regime reinforced their power through violence, and was not afraid to purge and silence those who expressed views other than their own. Both dictators introduced policies that resulted in utter catastrophe, but were never met with any resistance. While both countries now hold capitalist economies, the government of China is still retains many of its communist values. Communism was completely overthrown in the Soviet Union, while it was never really taken down in China. The one difference between the regimes toward the end, was that the Soviet Union began to loosen its grip on the people, and introduced social and economic reforms such as perestroika and glasnost. While the Chinese have reformed economically, they still maintain stringent social policies. The Chinese experienced virtually no resistance, apart from the protest in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Where the Chinese able to maintain control because they refused to reform? Was the downfall of the Soviet Union it's attempts to open up the government? Why did the Chinese remain complacement, while all throughout communist europe regimes were overthrown? Ironically, the protest in Tiananmen Square helped to spark the revolutions of Eastern Europe, yet did little to help those in China.

The Effectiveness of Satyagraha

Satyagraha was the method created and used by Mahatma Gandhi to win independence for India in the 1900s. Satyagraha is defined as "soul force" or "truth force". Our Revolutions class defined it as "a form of nonviolent resistance in order to resist injustice and pursue truth". Gandhi developed satyagraha when he was living in South Africa and first beginning his career. He believed that everyone comes to different conclusions about truth, and that no human being can ever be sure that they are right. Gandhi was the first leader to show the world that you can fight and win using nonviolent methods. While there were outbursts of violence during the transition, a significant amount was prevented. However, satyagraha would probably not work everywhere or during certain time periods. It was effective in India because the British were known for their principled government based on equality and human rights. Once the world saw that the armed forces were the basis of their government in India, they looked hypocritical and it challenged their authority. It exposed them, and they chose to stick with their principles. In other countries, not claiming to be based on democracy and human rights, it seems that while satyagraha would not be ineffective, there would be so much violence and so great a death toll that it would not be worth it. For example, the use of satyagraha in Libya today seems as if it would be futile. The current dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, has no qualms about massacring his own people. Generally, satyagraha has an even greater effect because the army eventually tends to turn on their government, rather than shoot their countrymen. In Libya, Gadhafi has hired missionaries from the south of Africa with no connections to the country. They are payed to fight and kill the people of Libya, and it is unlikely they will ever turn on Gadhafi. While using satyagraha might attract the attention of the international community, peaceful appeals  to Gadhafi from other goverments don't seem like they would have much affect. Only the threat of war seems as if it would back him down, and that would completely defeat the purpose of the satyagraha. While nonviolent resistance is a wonderful idea, and can be effective, it cannot be applied everywhere. Gandhi believed himself to be a failure when he died, as the partitioning of India resulted in great violence. In reality, there was no way for him to fail. He stuck to his principles and showed the world what they had never seen before. He has influenced so many others after him, such as Martin Luther King Jr. His method of satyagraha is the first to take individual virtues and life lessons and apply them to a national scale. What is most amazing is that he succeeded.