Categories for Communism

The First Industrial Revolution Essay

The First Industrial Revolution Essay

The two most significant social consequences of the First Industrial Revolution were the emergence of the Bourgeoisie and the rise of factories. As a result of new developments in machinery and the formation of factories, the division of the labor force drastically changed. No longer were people born into their crafts; however, they were able to choose factory work as their profession, and wealthy land owners were no longer able to count on the possession of large tracts of land as a form of wealth.

The land owners either transitioned into becoming factory owners, or they faced bankruptcy due to lack of production which resulted from people born on their land leaving when they came of age to seek better paying positions in factories.

The specialized craftsman were being forced out of existence by factories which could not only produce better goods, but they were able to, in some cases, triple the production of products previously produced by the specialized craftsman.

Many people were choosing to become machine operators because the work was easier in the sense that they were able to work in all day long instead on only daylight to dawn, and this increased production led to the formation of the Bourgeoisie. The Bourgeoisie was the newly created middle class that was all but non-existent before the First Industrial Revolution. These positions came into existence due to the increased production of products that needed to be sold to the public.

The Bourgeoisie was primarily shop owners, and their ability to market products to the public resulted in their dramatic increase in wealth and status within their local communities. These shop owners basically became the intermediary between the factory owners and the local populace, and their importance resulted in a new power struggle with the Factory and land owners. The Bourgeoisie caused the explosion of Capitalism in Europe and the rest of the world. The shop owners were able to rise above poverty by being able to supply everyone with goods that were previously only available to the wealthy. Being able to provide these items as a result of factories increased the wealth and influence of the Middle class businessmen, and Capitalism was born. Industrial Revolution and Capitalism

In a nut shell, Price claimed the Industrial Revolution created the division of labor (2004). The Division of Labor is perfectly encapsulated by the Henry Ford model of the assembly line (Price, 2004). Each worker on the assembly line only needs to know how to attach or inspect the operation of their assigned part on to the object as a whole, and not how to assemble the entire product. This allows for any unskilled person to be taught how to attach their doodad onto the doohickey without knowing what the doohickey does or operates. This is capitalism in the basic form of the ideal. Capitalism desires economic efficiency, thus the assembly line is a perfect example of the rise of unskilled factory workers and the decline of skilled craftsmen during the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism.

The rise of Capitalism assisted in increasing the chasm which already existed between the wealthy and the poor. The newly created middle class also rapidly becoming wealthy as a result of the new commerce, and were able to spend more time perusing the leisure activities before only enjoyed by the rich. Capitalism naturally had it opposition from all sides, the wealthy, the middle class, and the increasingly poor. This opposition was able to take root within the poor and lower middle class as they were the ones who were not able to benefit from the huge profits caused by inflation increasing faster than wages. The new theory of communism was developed from the combination of feudalism and Asia produced items. The Link between Communism and Capitalism and the Development of Communistic Theory

The disparity between the classes, the rich and the poor, was increasing by leaps and bounds every day. The demand of the rich factory owners to increase production thus increasing profits without any concern for the actual workers and their working conditions could be linked to Karl marks theory of communism (Price, 2004). The development of Communist theory naturally grew out of the ill-treatment of workers participating in Capitalism (Gates, 2011). Factory workers were dehumanized, dishonored, and treated as possessions by the factory owners (Gates, 2011). The consequences of the deplorable conditions of the employees created fertile beds for the theory of communism to take root and germinate (Steven, 2009) In Capitalism, individuals can earn wealth, own their own property, and production abilities, and everyone has the right to produce products.

In Communism, the wealth, property, and production all belong to the state and are communal property. Communism vacuums up all the land, assigns someone to manage the production, and dictates what will be produced, for example: corn, wheat, or beans. At harvest time, the crops are harvested, processed, and shipped out to the central distribution warehouses to be doled out at the leisure of the state and not necessarily as needs demand. The people who grew and harvested the crops do not get to keep any for their personal use. In Capitalism, each individual or corporation owns the land, decides what is to be grown, and who ever can afford to purchase the harvested product can purchase it, and some or all is kept for the use of the owners.

Communism does not encourage free thought of the individuals as they might realize that there could be profit to be made. Capitalism encourages individuals to think for themselves. This freedom of thought allows for each person to have the ability to encounter a problem, and creatively generate a solution that might benefit others for the right price. These two differences are what have allowed Capitalism to flourish over the past several centuries, and doomed Communism for failure almost before it was allowed to germinate as a viable way of life.

Gates, L. (2011, March 11). capitalism/communism – History Discussion. Study Guides, Lesson Plans, Homework Help, Answers & More – Retrieved January 5, 2013, from

Price, R. G. (2004, January 29). Division of Labor, Assembly Line Thought – The Paradox of Democratic Capitalism. – Making sense of history, economics, politics, philosophy, and war. Retrieved January 5, 2013, from

Steven (2009, December 14). Capitalism and communism – Gilles Dauv | Retrieved January 5, 2013, from

Ho Chi Minh and Ngo Dinh Diem Essay

Ho Chi Minh and Ngo Dinh Diem Essay

Following the Geneva conference in1954, an agreement was signed to end the First Indochina war. The agreements also lead to the temporary division of the Democratic of Vietnam into two sub- countries separated along the Laotian border next to the 17th parallel. To the north was the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and its capital in Hanoi and to the south was the Republic of Vietnam and its capital was in Saigon. The leader of the north was Ho Chi Minh and the south was lead by Ngo Dihn Diem.

The two leaders possess different skills and ideologies, however with the common target of uniting Vietnam, leading it to freedom. In this paper, an evaluation of the two leaders basing on the context of the Vietnam society will be made, about their leadership styles that lead them to win the hearts and minds of their subjects and consequently support for their initiatives (Schandler, 2009). Ho Chi Minh is a political genius. He fools the people of Vietnam to support his cause through propaganda, terror and betraying even his close friends to form the Communist movement in Vietnam.

He even tricks the patriotic solders and makes them to rebel, thinking that they are doing it for the benefit of Vietnam. A good example is the Hue Massacre in 1968. They seize the city of central Vietnam, killing thousands of innocent people, due to them inhabiting the southern Vietnam (Moss, 1990). Even though he commits all these, he is capable of creating good impression to the people of Vietnam and the whole world at large. He manages to mobilize the people in the west through his propagandas. As a result, the person protests the south and praised the north. They are not able to discover his ill motives, but mistook him as good leader with good morals vision (Catino, 2010). He is deceptive and canning. He always wore a smiley face that could easily deceive the masses to think that he has the interest of Vietnam in his mind. He even insinuates that is major aim is to free the people of Vietnam from the colonial chains of The French. However, his only major aim is to liberate the nation and leads it to prosperity and development. In 1945, when he returns to Vietnam, he is chosen to lead Viet Minh.

Here he convinces many of the leaders by claiming that it is the revolutionary group whose intention is to end the French invaders. He has massive support, and when they win the French at Dien Binh in 1954, Ho Chi Minh is accorded all the praises and seen as a hero (Catino, 2010). Ngo Dinh Diem portrays himself as an honest and courageous leader. He shows his prowess in blocking the French from dominating his homeland. Ngo is equipped with genuine liabilities and his political base is developed through his own family that has high esteem and reputation (Moss, 1990). Also, Ngo Dinh Diem having stayed in the US, has gained him personality and experience from the influential politicians and reputable church leaders like senator Mike Mansfield and the cardinal of catholic church by the name Francis Spellman. This has made him the prime minister and also enjoys the massive support from the Vietnamese people (Moss, 1990). Ngo Dinh Diem is a determined and hardworking leader. He is very much focused in closely working with The United States military to in building the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces. The chief reason for this is to create a strong defense at the northern border, against the inversion North Vietnamese.

Initiating the creation of Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) in 1963 and also providing the United States for the South Vietnamese is a good indication of his effort and hard work (Moss, 1990). Although he is challenged with the political instability, his determination won the hearts of many people in not only the Southern Vietnam and the entire Vietnam community. Personal leadership was a major factor in reuniting the country following the war. Ngo Dinh Diem and Ho Chi Minh were able to achieve growth and transformational processes as indicated by the conscious decisions they made in uniting the country (Schandler, 2009). Through personal change the leaders played a major role in developing and ensuring an enlightened life that was more meaningful, full of self-awareness, purpose-driven as well as being socially responsible.

Overall the leaders embraced vital lessons of personal leadership, which inspired the people to have deep reflection and indoctrination of positive aspects into everyday lives. The personal leadership had positive transformation of the Vietnamese society and had positive implications on the world around (Moss, 1990). It is clear from the discussion above that various skills and ideologies of the two discussed leaders contributed greatly to the reunion of Vietnam. Though their policies differed, their creativity and diligent leadership styles won the hearts of Vietnamese people, and the entire Continent of Asia. The Vietnamese embraced their leadership and consequently support for their leadership initiatives. They maintained political stability and achieved their dream of uniting the people of Vietnam (Catino, 2010).

Catino, M. S. (2010). “Peaceful Activities”North Vietnam’sInverson of the South. The Aggressors: Ho Chi Minh, North Vietnam, and the Communist Bloc (p. 86 &87). WashingtonD.C: Dog Ear Publishing, . Moss, G. (1990). America’s Diem Experiment The Formation of Seato, . Vietnam, an American ordeal (6th edition ed., p. 24). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Schandler, H. Y. (2009). The enemy. America in Vietnam: the war that couldn’t be won (p. 14). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.