West European Studies

Volksgemeinschaft is a German word that translates to a peoples community and was a political ideology being pushed in Germany before the Second World War by the National Socialist German Workers Party (Welch, 2004). In German political circles, this system had been conceptualized by theorist Ferdinand Tonnies in his book Community and Society. However, Ferdinand became a social democrat when the Nazi movement was increasing in power and influence. In this essay, I explain the concept of Volksgemeinschaft and the mechanisms the Nazi machinery employed to attract German youth into the movement (Welch, 2004).

The Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler wanted to create a peoples community by having all religious groups, social organizations, families and the individual submit to the state (Welch, 2004). His rule thus absorbed arts, the media, institutions of education, religion and most of the other areas through which people interacted into Nazi organization to realize the Volksgemeinschaft. Volksgemeinschaft was a vision aimed at establishing a purely German community dedicated only to the state and war and to eliminate all forms of social stratification and class struggle (Welch, 2004). Ownership and control of private property was to be permitted only if such property benefited the common society. In other words, Nazism would become a doctrine and a religion, dominating all aspects of life in Germany.

In order to establish the peoples community, the Nazis seized control of information and propaganda (Welch, 2004). Regulatory control measures were placed on all entertainment and information channels and Adolf Hitler issued a directive order authorizing the creation of the Reich Chamber of Culture. This was the tool Hitler would use to dominate Germans by suppressing freedom of communication, opinion and expression. In addition, he appointed Dr. Joseph Goebbels as the Minister of Propaganda (Welch, 2004).

Hitler visualized native Germans as the perfect race, and therefore all other residents with their ancestry outside Germany were categorized as undesirable. Jews were the most targeted group. However, the Reich Chamber of Culture was not designed to keep the undesirables out of the system, but rather to integrate Nazi doctrines into the arts and other forms of entertainment (Welch, 2004).  It had divisions dedicated to literature, broadcast and print media, music, theatre and visual arts and the film industry.

The Nazi regime established a publishing house called Eher Verlag which controlled the purchase of all newspapers in the entire nation. From this publishing house, propaganda articles were pre-written as dictated from  the Nazi top brass and distributed to all newspaper publishers for inclusion in the news (Welch, 2004). All films were to glorify the Nazi party, its leader Adolf Hitler and the martyrdom of Nazism. Entertainment in forms of outdoor theatre and art thematically emphasized blood and soil, meaning that every German should be ready to die for the country. Hitler went on a mission to re-establish the relationship between ancient Greeks and modern Germans reinforcing the notion that they were not just culturally superior, they were the perfect race (Welch, 2004).

Hitler and the entire Nazi fraternity wanted to establish a socio-economic and political system anchored on Nazi principle (Welch, 2004). They therefore had to sell their ideology to the youth so that they grow having these beliefs entrenched deep into their consciences. To accomplish this, Hitler established youth groups according to ages to train young boys. Those aged between six and ten years were enrolled into a program called Pimpfen that is similar to cub scouts in the ordinary scouting movement. Boys Aged between ten and fourteen years were similarly enrolled into a program known as Deutsches Jungvolk and those between fourteen and eighteen belonged to the Hitler Jugend or the Hitler Youth (Wildt, 2007). Military values and enduring love for the countries were taught in the two older groups. The boys were taught to be unquestioningly obedient and ruthless while fulfilling their country to the nation and to have honor, undeterred strength and courage.

The boys were trained on military strategy, usually conducting military drills and ceremonies to honor those who had died in wars, fighting for the nation. Due to their importance to the Nazi regime, the boys in the Hitler youth were put under watch of very dedicated Nazi philosophers who made sure they were indoctrinated with the ideologies and philosophies on which Nazism was founded on (Welch, 2004). Additionally, the youth in the party who had shown enough commitment were given the responsibility of inducing staunch patriotism to other youth from all over the nation and absolute devotion to the leader, Hitler. By the year 1939, membership to the Hitler youth had become compulsory. Those emerging from the lower two categories were to take an oath while being initiated to the Hitler Youth (Welch, 2004).

Young girls were not left out of Hitlers grand plan being grouped into two separate groups one for those between the ages of ten to fourteen and another one for those between the ages of fourteen to eighteen (Welch, 2004). Besides being taught to be dutiful future wives and mothers, the girls were also indoctrinated with the values and philosophies of Nazism and taught to be obedient and disciplined and to absolutely submit to the will of the state. Hitler needed the youth of Germany to be loyal to him and him only therefore it is unsurprising that he went to such lengths to brainwash the youth of the nation.

Since the beginning of Nazi rule under Hitler, there was a deliberate attempt to control and manipulate all aspects of daily life. Popular culture, music, film and art plus broadcast and print media were filled with propaganda. To prevent from engaging in intellectual dialogue and issue-oriented thinking, Hitler enacted an anti-intellectualism policy and fed into all people a strong sense of militancy, national pride and love for Nazism (Wildt, 2007). He and the party realized the effectiveness of continuing to use the Reich (organizations, offices, ministries and other mechanisms for controlling a particular characteristic of daily life for example religion or music) to brainwash and control the youth in Germany as a means of establishing a Nazi rule that would last forever (Welch, 2004). If he had sufficient control over the youth, Hitler that his control over Germany would only strengthen with time, and then he could establish the Volksgemeinschaft with minimum opposition.

The main objective of Hitler in his endeavor of establishing a Peoples Community was reviving German strength after the destruction that had occurred in the course of the First World War. He also wanted to build an invincible nation and an army of brainwashed followers who would annex territory from states neighboring Germany for more living space, and eliminating the Jews and other undesired people (Wildt, 2007). He was a racial supremacist as pointed out earlier, and he wanted to implement the Volksgemeinschaft as a means of creating a nation of the perfect race.

Hitler was somehow successful in influencing the youth of Germany in accepting Nazi doctrines. German youth had a need for youth groups where their affairs could be addressed. At the time, being in the military was perceived as a prestige and a manifestation of patriotism and bravery (Welch, 2004). Hitler capitalized on these factors to indoctrinate the youth with Nazi ideals and philosophies. In any way, recruitment into the Hitler youth was made compulsory in 1939. Furthermore, the school system was inappropriately used to exalt warfare and alienate pupils from their parents. Popular strategies employed include fun activities like camping and hiking and while at it, children could be taught Nazi policies and be taken through marching sessions and other military drills (Welch, 2004). The leisure accompanying such outings attracted more and more young boys and girls and those who disdained from them had little choice since almost all other organizations were either illegalized or closed down permanently.

Continuous alienation between parents and kids raised a youth population that supported the Nazi regime more that their parents. Textbooks and educational curricula had been altered to expound on Nazi philosophy and history, perverted racial ideologies and teach how glorious war was (Welch, 2004). There was a deliberate attempt to induce anti-Semitism in children from a very young age by insinuating that the Jews were taking over the running of government, business opportunities and other resources that the bona fide Germans were entitled to by birth (Wildt, 2007). The timing of teaching such values and beliefs at such young ages was effective since the children had not come into contact with any opposing views as the media was gagged by the machinations of the National Socialist Party.

Children and young people also found it easy to accept outrages committed against the people by the Nazis like house inspections since unlike the older generations, they had not lived in any other political system and interpreted such activities as supporting government cause rather than invasion of personal privacy. Any anti-Nazi dialogue directed to most young people from parents or other members of the family and the community usually went unheeded since the children had been taught to put the Nazi party above everything else, including family (Welch, 2004).

However, some young people were more insightful and did not accept what they were taught by the National Socialist Party blindly. As a result, anti-Nazi youth movements sprouted from several quarters, the main being the Swing Movement youth group and the Edelweiss Pirates. As the war progressed, the Hitler Youth had become less leisure oriented and more of an army (Welch, 2004). Morale among members decreased and enrolment dropped. More and more youth were now joining anti-Hitler youth movements and engaged acts of disobedience for example listening to popular music from the United States and Britain which had banned.

The Edelweiss Pirates were move vocal in opposing Nazism. This group was more or less structured like the Hitler Youth and engaged in the same activities like camping hiking and singing but instead sang tunes attacking and criticizing the Nazi regime (Welch, 2004). When they encountered members from the Hitler Youth, they could attack the ferociously. They disobeyed directives issued by the Nazis like abstinence from sexual activities, not dressing like Americans or Britons and accepted members of the opposite sex (Welch, 2004). All in all, it is somewhat difficult to assess the extent of Nazi influence on German youth before the war since no solid statistics are available and even if they were, they would lack credibility as the Nazis often exaggerated things.

Both civilization in Greek and Roman Empire led to numerous contributions in different fields such as in religion, law and trade. The Roman Empire has been one of the most influential civilizations of all time. Its culture has been integrated throughout many societies. At its peak, the Roman Empire blanketed Europe in its vastness and even stretched overseas to Africa. In addition, the Roman civilization even reached into Asia as well. The Romans left their mark on many societies and left behind a bounty of cultural riches. A comparison of ancient Greek democracy and Roman republic, the ideals of government expressed and used by the ancient Greeks and Romans are well known. First, democracies and republics are alike and unlike in the way that their general system works. Both systems give their power to the people. A republic is a form of state based on the concept that sovereignty resides in the people and was found in Roman Empire while democracy is a political system in which the people of a country rule. Both systems have however got elected representatives.

Roman Empire Civilization
The Romans can be seen as one of the most complex civilizations of its time by examining its economy, technology, and religion. As a result of Roman civilization, many changes took place such as, the growth of the Roman economy through its tribal beginning to its historical rise to power. As a result of the civilization, there was a positive rise of technology and the changes were noted in the religious forms. The Roman Empire was composed of three tribes Latins, Sabines, and Semites. Greek civilization also marked the beginning of human development in terms of business and other social areas in major cities such as Patras and Larissa.

Democracy during the Ancient days in Roman and Greece
Democracy can be defined as the ability to express or participate in a political contest without being intimidated or without favoritism. It is the natural existence of the rule of Law in the society. During the early period in the Roman and Greece Empire, there existed kings and queens who had the mandate to come up with policies and decision makers in the running of the government. Athenian democracy was initiated in Athens, one of the Greek city-states and Athens was the first known democracy that was well documented and was more relevant and powerful during the Ancient times. By 500 BC, democracy started spreading in most parts of Roman Empire and the Etruscan Kings were opposed by the Roman aristocrats rule in Roman Empire. However, they could not get rid of the Kings hence they had to entice the poor in the society to help them in fighting the war.

The Roman Empire was full of radicalism and many elites in the Ancient days were against Monarchy rule. In 510 BC, Sparta together with the Athens united to bring down the tyrannical kingdom of Hippias. Athens took the opportunity to introduce a democratic form of government which lasted almost 200 years. A year later, the Romans overthrew the absolute power of Tarquinius and replaced it with the Roman Senate, which as a generally true republic lasted about 450 years the reason why Tarquinius was easily replaced by the Senate was because the system had weak political structure that could not respond to the crisis especially after 512 BC. However, the Athenian democracy was full of individualism and was based on personal interest such as the interest to use the army in fighting the people who were outside the wall.

Many people criticized the Athenian democracy since according to their definition on democracy it meant that democracy belonged to certain group or clique of people. They viewed society like a modern stock company and that democracy is like a company where all shareholders have an equal say regardless of the scale of their holding one share or ten thousand, it makes no difference. They regarded this as manifestly unjust. In Aristotle, this is categorized as the difference between arithmetic and geometric equality.

Democracy was far from being the normal style of governance and the beliefs on which it was based were in effect a minority opinion. In comparing the military structure in both countries, it is worth acknowledging that the Roman Empire had a strong military that was well organized as compared to the Greek Forces.
During the reign of Caesar Augustus, he abandoned all the citizen-soldiers and replaced it with fully qualified soldiers that were well paid by the Empire the military was well organized in terms of coordination. Soldiers were well distributed in the Empire and the legendary troops were paid to patrol around the Empire. Even though in Greek the soldiers were centrally placed to guard the State, it was not well organized and financed as compared to Romanian soldiers who earned up to 900 sesterces in a year. The Greek soldiers were earning almost half of what was paid to the Roman soldiers.

Similarity between the two Ancient forms of Government
It is worth noting that the two forms of government experienced worst form of governance based on Monarchy in Roman Empire and tyrannical rule in Greece. The two forms of government can be said to be grounded on dictatorial rule that led to revolution in both countries. In Roman Empire, Tarquinius was replaced with the Roman Senate and in Greece the people opposed the tyrannical rule that led to formation of Athenian democracy that was also opposed by the elites who claimed that it did not include the majority rights. Both political system in the Ancient time were undemocratic and based on hereditary, where leadership was transferred from one generation to the next.

Ancient Social aspects in Rome and Greek
Rome was the largest city of its time and the population was huge and required a good system of government that could ensure that there was food security. Before the civilization process in both Ancient States, people were involved in several activities from trade to agriculture. For instance, in the Roman Empire, Italian Peninsula in 10 BC, people were farmers who grew food crops along the Mediterranean Sea and as a result, the Roman Empire expanded to be one of the largest Empires in the world. It is worth noting that the Roman political aspect and changes were influenced by the agricultural activities that took place due to the increased population that required a proper government with good structures that could ensure that the interest of the majority were met.

As a result, there was a paradigm shift of power from the monarchs to Oligarchy form of government. This was a form of governance that was based on the decision of a group of leaders leading in a bad way vis--vis to autocracy that is composed of good leaders. In Greek city states, most people had a unique way of life. They valued trade as a means of earning a living and few were involved in farming as compared to the Romans. The two Ancient States experienced class conflict as a result of exploitations and control of means of production that were managed by the upper class that exploited the citizens and mistreated the poor. The kind of class conflict that was marked with a lot of changes was the class of conflict in Ancient Roman Empire when the lower class were against the rule and legislation of the Roman laws that only favored the oligarchs.

Even though there was no major difference in the types of laws that were used in both States, it is worth noting that the Roman laws gave the senate a lot of power and authority in terms of controlling the economic resources and this was the reason why most of the Ancient Romans were against the form of government that was in place during the leaderships of the Oligarchs. Despite the fact that the senators were powerful and authoritative, they could not come up with policies or legislation individually but required the support of the majority.

Conclusion
Although the Greek democracy and the Roman republic have many resemblances, they also have many differences. Ancient Greek democracy and the ancient Roman republic may seem the same but they are actually both similar and different in three significant ways how the system of a democracy and a republic work, how each government elected their officials, and how the hierarchy of each system was oriented. Finally, civilization in both Ancient States led to major changes both in social and political aspects.

The western civilization started in the late 1400 and continued in the two subsequent centuries. Renaissance was one of the major developments witnessed in this particular civilization this development became a major benefit not only to the western world but indeed the entire world. Renaissance intellectually marked the start of modernity which continues throughout the world to date. It is in fact possible to relate objectively the thoughts, debates and issues of the western civilization, to the ones taking place in the modern world. Therefore, without the early western civilization and in particular, without renaissance, the world could have waited for much longer to experience the benefits of modernity (Spielvogel, pp 26).

The classical past rediscovery was a major adventure as far as renaissance is concerned was the discovery of the voyages and the exploration and the conquest of America. It therefore became possible to transfer several aspects of the western civilization to the American continent. The pace of development of the American continent increased dramatically following the European invasion. Even though one might argue that it was not a good act for the Europeans to invade and rule foreign people on their own territories, the Americans benefited significantly from this invasion and ever since, they have never lagged behind as far as all aspects of development such as economic, cultural and political are concerned (Bruun and Commager, pp 37).

The western civilization brought about major developments in the world of science which resulted to the scientific revolution. This particular aspect of the western civilization had significant impact on how the work was done. Several machines were invented which made work much easier and the same time increased the level of productivity. Through the same scientific revolution, the Europeans were able to transfer such knowledge to other part of the world such as America. Ever since the scientific revolution started, more advanced inventions have been made and eventually we can now talk of a global village. Therefore, the western civilization, which increased the European powers, was a good thing as the world able to realize several benefits from it which are still evident to date (Bruun and Commager, pp 52).

The Persian, Peloponnesian, and Punic wars were among other things, wars for superiority

In all ages of civilization, wars have been part of the human society. In almost all the centuries, some nations or societies have been involved in wars. Every war has had its major causes and consequences according to the civilization of the society involved. These causes, the techniques used in the war and the aftermath of the war have changed as the society changes. The wars have evolved from the manual battles using simple weapons such as swords to very sophisticated weapons in the modern world such as nuclear and biological weapons or the more recent cyber war. The existence of wars in all ages of civilization has left historians with a lot of questions. The Persian, the Peloponnesian and the Punic war were wars of superiority between the fighting communities among other things (Burger, pp 15).

The Persian wars between the Persian Empire and the Greeks in 490 BC and the end of the fifth century can be considered as wars of superiority. Since the formation of the Persian Empire in the 6th century BC, the empire was perceived to be a threat of the states in Greece states. The wars resulted into the separation of the region which had enjoyed many years of interactions. In the first Persian war, the Greeks had superior weapons and tactics which were decisive against the Persians. The second war in the fifth century proved to be a war of superiority when the Hellenic League was formed by the Greek states as the Persian king made plans of large expeditions against them. The Greeks were able to defend their superiority while the Persians were able to defend their expansionism despite the superior weapons used by the Greeks in the war. The superiority of the Greeks culture and identity can be attributed to the events of the Persian war where their victories were an evidence of a superior culture (Stearns, pp 22).

The Peloponnesian war is another war of superiority in the ancient world. The Athens and the Sparta were two societies in Greece who had opposing economical and social ideologies. Each of the society desired to be superior over the other and control the region. This resulted into rivalry and confrontation between the two societies. The result was the terrible Peloponnesian war between 431 and 404 BC. In the 5th century BC, the Athens had attained absolute control over the region and the Greek felt that they had lost their superiority and autonomy in the land. This led to the formation of the Peloponnese league by the Greeks and the League of Delos by the Athenians (Hayes, pp 27).

The Punic war was not different. Carthage and Rome fought for superiority in the region during the first Punic war where Rome captured Sicily from Carthage and undermined her economic powers. In the second Punic war, Hannibal was determined to undermine the influence of Rome. He took assistance from the French and the Italian armies and was able to capture Iberian city from Rome. However, due to lack of a strong naval power, he was unable to capture Rome although Carthage gained superiority over Mediterranean region. Rome latter conquered in the third Punic war and regained her superiority (Stearns, pp 33).  

In conclusion, the Persian, the Peloponnesian and the Punic wars were in no doubt wars of superiority. Different powers fought military, economic and social superiority in their regions. To gain superiority, societies formed league against their rival which in some instances worked to their favor (Burger, pp 35).
How do historians identify groups as civilized

Historians and other scholars describe civilization as the process by which a society become civilized. Civilization is characterized by an organized society with organized social, political and economic structures. Modern civilized society is a society with developed agricultural and commercial systems, urbanization, religion, political and educational systems (Hayes, pp 41).

Many historians believe that civilization started in the Roman Empire. The roman civilization started developing in the tenth BC in Italia peninsula from a small agricultural society and developed to be the greatest civilization in the ancient world. The society developed to the Roman Empire which had an influence in most parts of Europe for several centuries (Stearns, pp 48).

The ancient Rome had well organized political, social and economic structures. The city of Rome which was the largest city in the ancient world enjoys the legacy of the home of ancient civilization. The population of Rome in the ancient world was up to a million people which is equal to the population of todays major towns such as London a century ago. There were well established legal systems, agricultural systems, culture, language, literature and art as well as educational systems. The Roman Empire like any other civilization in the ancient world had a well trained army which defended the empire and conquered new lands. The political leadership in Rome was initially headed by a king and latter by an emperor after the establishment of the Roman Empire (Hayes, pp 54).

The ancient Rome civilization was greatly influenced by the ancient Greek civilization. The Greek civilization fell after the Greeks were defeated by the Rome to establish the Roman Empire. However, the ancient Greek has over the centuries remained significant. The western culture and identity is based on the ancient Greek civilization. The modern political, literature and art, education and philosophies are founded on the ancient Greeks cultures. The ancient Greek world had organized social and political structures that were headed by military kings and the modern democracies are believed to have evolved from these systems of governance (Stearns, pp 60).

Until the 16th century BC, there were still people who were masked in mystery. Residing in the region lying to the west of Mesopotamia, the Persian people were a contrasting group of people among the European tribes of Indo. Some Persians were nomadic while others were living a settled life and were seen to be developing their own unique religion and culture which was different from great cities found in the west. At times, history is all about notions and nothing can emphasize more clearly this particular feature of history that the dramatic emergence on the world stage of the Persians, or the world stage which was basically centered in the Mesopotamia region. These historical ideas can explain the rapid increase of the power of the Persians not only within the region of Mesopotamia, but indeed throughout the world (Hayes, pp 64).

Despite the fact that the Persian Empire had immense power greatly influencing the entire Mesopotamian region and indeed the whole world, making it to be considered as the pioneer of the Roman Empire, the rise of Alexander the great as the Macedonian king posed a major threat to it. The Persian Empire was destroyed between 333 and 330 BC by Alexander the great. Within a period of only eighteen months, this great king had already cleared virtually all the Persian people out of the Anatolia region, a region they had occupied for more than two centuries. The great Macedonian king planned a mission to conquer the whole of the Persian Empire through his punitive expedition. Although the Persian ruler was sarcastically called Darius II, possessed a much superior military force than Alexander, the Macedonian king still managed to conquer the Persian Empire in 331 BC, when his military forces managed to cross the Euphrates River into Mesopotamia. After Darius II fled in 330 BC, Alexander entered Babylon. This marked the beginning of a new era for the Persians as their long history in the Mesopotamia region started developing into a new history. The Mesopotamia region thus first experienced the period of Hellenistic as well as the Greek and there after the Romans dominated the area between Euphrates and Tigris (Burger, pp 70).  

Development of democracy and republic by the Greeks and the Romans
Democracy as a word and also the concept it represents originated from the Mediterranian Sea communities. The origins of this noble concept can in fact be credited to the Greek people of the 16th century BC. The word democracy is derived from two words of the Greeks demos, which means people and kratein which means to rule. When these words are joined together they form democracy which basically means ruling people. The Greeks governance system was probably close to the true democracy as it is known today. According to the Greeks and the Romans, dictatorship was the worst form of government the governed could ever be subjected to and they thus shunned any ideologies biased towards dictatorship (Stearns, pp 78).

The civilization of the Greeks and the Romans was similar and was effectively divided into small states and cities and none could exceed a population of ten thousand people. Thus when a state or a city attained this population, it could earn the status of either a state or a city in order to ease the governance of people. According to the democracy of the Greeks and the Romans, no peoples representatives existed in the structures of governance. Rather, the people ruled themselves in a direct manner each individual was a member with life membership as far as decision making is concerned. This form of democracy was close to absolute democracy save for the fact that the slaves and the women were not considered as equal citizens and thus they did not have the right to vote (Hayes, pp 87).

The Romans were the first to establish a republic their republic was part of the civilization of the ancient Romans. The Roman Republic was basically characterized by the republican type of government. It started following the Roman Empire overthrowing in 509 BC, and lasted for more than four hundred and fifty years. It changed after its subversion via a long series of civil battles and later formed the Principate type of government as well as the imperial period. The republic of the Romans was governed under a sophisticated constitution that was mainly centered on the principles of checks and balances together with separation of power principles. The evolution of this particular constitution was significantly influenced by the great struggle between patricians or the aristocracy and the plebeians that is the talented Roman (Stearns, pp 92).

The democratic concept as developed by the Greeks was a major success in determining the best possible means through which people can be governed. They had democratic principles that favored absolute democracy where each person had the right to contribute to various decisions being made by the ruling authorities. However, the democratic concept of the Greeks had a major shortcoming in that it did not recognize slaves and women who formed more than fifty percent of the Greek population. The republic that was developed by the Romans was also a major success since it enabled the creation of a constitution that had ways of creating checks and balances as well as separating powers, thus enhancing integrity and accountability on the part of the leaders and rulers (Burger, pp 105).

The decay of the aura as Benjamin understands it comes about as a result of absence rather than presence of the object of focus. If Karl Marx and Frederick Engels are better known for their political and economic rather than literary writings, this is not in the least because they are regarded literature as insignificant (Seashore, 1967). This is because some of the literary and thematic writings and performances lack an object of focus leading to Aristotelian belief that literature is not a reflection of reality. I can substantiate this claims by the following presentations which show that some forms of literature lack the appropriate content therefore there is no way that they can reflect the society and what the society aspires (Ryan,1991).

The writings of Karl Marx
The writings of Karl Marx as a youthful author of lyric, himself as a youthful author of lyric poetry, a fragment of verse-drama and an unfinished comic novel much influenced by Laurence Sterne, are laced with literary concepts and allusions. He wrote a sizable unpublished manuscript on art and religion, and planned a journal of dramatic criticism, a full length study of Balzac and a treatise on aesthetics (Terry, 1976). Art and literature were part of the very air that Marx breathed as a formidably cultured German intellectual in the great classical tradition of his society. His acquaintance with literature, from Sophocles to the Spanish novel, Lucretius to pot boiling English fiction, was staggering in its scope. The German workers circle he founded in Brussels devoted an evening a week to discussing the arts, and Marx himself was an inveterate theatre-goer, declaimer of poetry, devourer of every species of literary art from Augustan prose to industrial ballads.

He criticized his own works in a letter to Engels as artistic whole and was scrupulously sensitive to questions of literary style, but not considered a particular subject of address (Terry, 1976).. Moreover the pressure of aesthetic concepts can be detected behind some of the most crucial categories of economic thought he employees in his mature work.

Marxist criticism is not merely sociology of literature concerned with how novels get published and whether they mention the working class. Its aim is to explain the literary work more fully and this means a sensitive attention to its forms styles and meanings (Thomas, 1991). It also means grasping those forms, styles and meanings as the products of a particular history.

Art therefore for Marxism is part of the superstructure society. It is part of the societys ideology an element in that complex structure of social perception which ensures that the situation in which one social class has powers over others is either seen by most members of the society as natural or not seen at all (Thomas, 1991).  To understand literature then means understanding the total social process of which it is part. As the Russian Marxist critic Georgy Plekhanov put it the social mentality of an age is conditioned by that ages social relations. This is nowhere quite as evident as in the history of art and literature. Literary works are not mysteriously inspired, or explicable simply in terms of their authors psychology (Jonathan, 1992).

Painter Henry Matisse
He once remarked that all art bears the imprint of its historical epoch, but that great art is that in which this imprint is most deeply marked. Most students of literature are thought otherwise the greatest art is that which is timelessly transcends its historical conditions. Marxist criticism of this has much to say on the issue but the historical analysis of literature did not of course begin with Marxism (Terry, 1976). Many thinkers before Marx had tried to account for literary works in terms of the history which produced them. One of this is the German idealist philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, who had a profound influence on Marxs own aesthetic thought. The originality of Marxist criticism, then lies not in the historical approach to literature, but in its revolutionary understanding of history itself.

The production of ides, concepts and consciousness is first of all directly interwoven with the material intercourse of man, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the spiritual intercourse of men, appear here as the direct efflux of mens material behavior (Seashore, 1967). We dont proceed from what men say, imagine, conceive nor from men as described, throughout of, imagined, conceived in order to arrive at corporeal man rather we proceed from the active man consciousness. Consciousness does not determine life but life is able to determine consciousness. Many literary works are written out of consciousness hence they dont reflect what life entails. If only the writer were considering life experiences and then write in consideration with them, then the works of literature would be having subjects of focus.

It is for the above reason that Marx argued that in the social production of literary writers, they enter into definite relationships that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces (Seashore, 1967). The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which raises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material conditions the social, political and intellectual life processes in general. It is not the consciousness of men, that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

The dunciad
To understand King Lears work you dont have to understand the symbolism but study the literary history and add footnotes about the sociological facts which enter into them. First it calls for the understanding of the complex indirect relations between the works and the ideological worlds they inhabit, relations which emerge not just in themes and preoccupations but in style rhythm, image, quality and form (Brown, 1988). However we do not understand the ideology either unless we grasp the part it plays in society as a whole how it consists of a definite historically relative structure of perception which underpins the power of a particular social class.

Symbolic elements of Salambo
The process of writing Salambo occupied more than five years of Flauberts life. During this time, Flaubert claimed to have read hundreds of texts on the culture, art, economy, and history of the ancient Carthage. Flaubert organized these records in his dossier for the novel of which later was released to the public. This was partially in response to the criticism from his contemporary Charles Augustine Sainte-beuve, who had questioned not only the obscure subject of the work, but also its historical accuracy. Like Sainte-beuve, modern scholars have generally dismissed Flaubert claims of historical veracity. They have pointed out that Flaubert drew his material from one principal source, the history written by Polybius in the second century B.C., a basic record of the pubic wars. Accompanying such historical personages as Hamilcar Barca, Hanno and Matho, all of whom appear in the writings of Polybius, Flaubert inserted the indented figure of Salambo. In the end people consider Salambo as a conflation of history and the product of Flauberts active and neurotic imagination.

In the 20th century, George Kukacs viewed Salambo as a model of the historical novel. Later commentators have responded by arguing that Flauberts novel, despite its historic setting, bears little resemblance to such fiction, which tends to depict psychological motivation and to trace teleological momentum in history, qualities completely lacking in Salambo (Langer, 1942). In the contemporary period, victor Brombert initiated a new phase of serious interest in the work.  He viewed the work as a compendium of atrocities and refused to dismiss its outright as the sensationalized product of a disturbed mind.

In addition to form and theme, many late 20th century critics of Salambo have drawn to the sense of historiography implied by the novel most have maintained that its method is historical, observing that Salambo questions the very possibility of composing a scientific, archaeological recovery of the past in written form. Other scholars have considered Flauberts appropriation of myth in his narrative. O0ther scholars have also suggested that Flaubert undertook to write historical analogue by drawing broad comparisons between the ancient Carthaginians and the French bourgeoisie in the 19th century. As numerous points of view have been forwarded by critics, most consider the work paradoxical and unique component of the 19th century French fiction.

What is the  Age of Exploration  Who were the main countries involved in this race to build an empire What were their motives What kind of impact did exploration have on the New World and its inhabitants What inventions made exploration and sailing around the world possible How did the Age of Exploration impact Africa

The Age of Exploration was the time when the leading countries of Europe started conducting expeditions that enabled them discover lands beyond their borders, particularly lands in Africa and the New World (North and South America) which they would explore and later on colonize.  Spain and Portugal were the first two nations to embark on this venture and subsequently followed by England, France and Holland later on.  Their motives stemmed from the Three Gs  Glory, Gold and God.   To be able to acquire more lands than their rival would give them more prestige and stamp their class as a superior nation (Glory).  Conquering new lands would bring more riches to fill their coffers and make them wealthier than ever, especially with the lucrative spice trade which the Europeans wanted to covet as spices were considered far more precious than gold because of its rarity in Europe (Gold).  This was also an opportunity for them to Christianize the natives and spread the faith (God) .  After Portugal led the way, the rest of the leading European nations that could afford it joined in and created a competition for exploration and colonization (Duiker and Spielvogel, 287, 293-298).

If there was one impact it made, it led to the creation of a  new world system.   This was characterized by the gradual emergence of capitalism through a global trade network rising as mercantilism was gradually giving way to this new system.  Besides being settlements for people from Europe, these colonies served a purpose economically, providing natural resources for the colonizers to make a profit.  It also marked the end of the isolation of the western hemisphere as colonizers and settlers started coming in to add to the local population.  As for the inhabitants, they would be exposed to a culture that was alien to them as these new settlers tried to instill their culture upon them on the pretext of  civilizing  them.  In the process, these people would lose their identity as they were made to adapt to the ways of their colonizers.  This was particularly true in the colonies of the Spanish and Portuguese.  In the case of Africa, it was similar as the region is also rich in natural resources, particularly gold and in addition to this, the slave trade became very lucrative here as natives were abducted and sold at centers of trade and eventually imported to the western hemispheres.  Slavery used to be between Africa and the Middle East and the arrival of the Europeans, particularly the Portuguese, altered the direction of the slave trade to serve the interests of the Europeans (Duiker and Spielvogel, 286, 299-301).

As far as technology was concerned, the creation of sailing ships that were capable of sailing the high seas.  These ships replaced the galley-driven ones that used to ply the Mediterranean and were proven to be more faster and maneuverable.  In addition to the ships, special maps called portolani proved to be very reliable as well as other technologies that were imported from the orient such as the compass and the astrolabe also proved useful in expeditions (Duiker and Spielvogel, 293).

It is the Enlightenment era. You have had the ability to hear both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes discuss their unique and novel views of government. In your own words explain to me the arguments held by each man and what made them so new and innovative. Tell me if possible, what was the reasoning behind each of their works.

Both Thomas Hobbes and John Lockes ideas served as the foundation for modern democratic ideas during this era.  John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both agreed that a ruler of some sort appeared absolutely necessary for a country to thrive and flourish. Without a leader, the country would fall away into nothing, wracked by instability or chaos, if not anarchy.  In the political sense, the two philosophers agreed only on this subject. However, they each believed that a different type of power should reside as supreme. In his work,  Leviathan,  Hobbes emphasized the need of a ruler to regulate the lives of the people.  While he acknowledged that people are endowed with natural rights, they have the tendency to be a slave to it and follow it and it may cause conflict or chaos.  It is therefore necessary that society needs to have a ruler to regulate these rights and ensure order and stability.  This is Hobbes  Leviathan.  Hobbes thought that only one man, a king, should have the right to govern the people. One ruler should govern the people who in turn must be willing to conform to the norms of society by willingly curbing some of these rights as part of ensuring order.  This was Hobbes version of the social contract.  While Hobbes was an avowed royalist, he believed that any democratic society could still apply this principle (Duiker and Spielvogel, 380-383).

Locke took Hobbes social contract concept a step further felt that the people should somewhat administer their government. Unlike Hobbes, who believed the people have to give up some of their rights, he believed that the people should be involved in everything the government decided, those governing them. In his idea of the social contract, rulers have to govern wisely and judiciously and so as long as they do this, the citizens will comply with the laws and decrees.  However, if the government did not live up to its part of the social contract, the people had the right to change the government because this government is no longer considered legitimate and has lost the moral authority to govern.  This was how Locke came up with his own version of the social contract which is akin to the kind of arrangement found in democratic countries today (Duiker and Spielvogel, 380-383).  The bottom line here is that while Hobbes believed that even freedom-loving people still need a government to administer them since they are members of a society and the  contract  states they have to give up some rights.  Locke took a different view stating both rulers and the governed should forge an agreement, through a constitution to define their relationship.  So as long as both parties comply with this, everything will be orderly in society.

Greek civilization began in the archaic period in the 8th to 6th BC and continued through the classical period at the time of the Roman Empire which made it to spread across Europe and the Mediterranean region. The culture of the Greece especially during the classical period was the basis of civilization in the west. One of these aspects of the Greek culture that had significant impact to the Greeks and the western civilization is the concept of their sexuality. In the antiquity period, same sex marriages were prevalent in ancient Greece. The most widespread form of homosexual relationships that existed in the Greek society was the relationships between the youthful boys and adult men (Sinos, 33). These relationships were termed pederasty. The concept of pederasty was linked to the athletic and arty nudity of the gymnasia, segregation of women from social issues and delayed marriages by men.

Pederasty was an integral part of the society especially the military and at some times it influenced troop deployment. These relationships were complex and were classified as either honorable or dishonorable. The society considered it an abomination and a deficiency for a man not have a youthful boy as lover and opposition to not doing so were punishable. These relationships were critical in the Greek society and were an essential part of the educational and social settings. The rituals that were performed before such relationships began included the approval by the father of the youthful boy for the suitors. The boys were protected from seduction by potential suitors by being under the surveillance of slaves that were called pedagogues. There was great expectation especially by the fathers of the boys that the there boys would grow into handsome young men in order to be the object of desire from adult men.

Boys were eligible to enter into such pedestary relationships from the age of twelve but some joined even at the age of nineteen. The boys were at liberty to choose their suitors and had to be seduced by their potential suitors. This made the boy child in the Greek society to be used for social and financial gains by their suitors and their fathers. The pedestary union lasted until the boy reached adulthood. The Greek society regarded the union as a rite of passage of boys into adulthood. The union offered several advantages to the parties in the union for the boys and his family, mentoring by a respected older man was the elevation in social standing and possible attainment of powerful positions in the society (Thornton, 21). When the relationship ended the man had matured, the man turned heterosexual and married but the close relationship remained between the two men of the union and the society permitted lovemaking to continue if the two men so wished.

Pedestary had its rules, and some actions were not allowed, some of the practices that were not permissible included lovemaking between the slaves and boys or paying unengaged boys for sex. These unengaged or free boys could be prevented from perfuming certain roles in the society or were scorned by the society if they were found to have accepted gifts for sex before they were engaged. These relationships were open for abuse and a classic example of this was the case between aeschinian and timarchious in 346 BC. Aeschines argued that timarchiois during his youth had traded sexual favors for public office with several rich families. Arschenian won the case but he himself was also engaging in the vice while in position of power.

These pedestary relationships although permitted by the society, there were provisions for ending the relationships due to certain circumstances especially when there was violence. There was also circumstances when there youthful boy was given the opportunity to declare whether the relationship was favorable to him and in the event the boy wanted to end the relationship , he was given the go ahead. The pedesytary relationship was beneficial to the Greek society because it acted as a safeguard mechanism against youthful sexual immorality. This was possible because in the case the youthful lover committed a crime it was his lover who was punished and not the youthful boy. The relationships also benefited the military by fostering unity because the lovers fought beside each other in the wars (Thomas, 28). The relationships were also aimed as a method of controlling the population by channeling sex to activities that were not procreative.

The heterosexual relationships in the Greek society were characterized by adult men in their thirties pairing up with young women in their teens. The society tightly controlled the affairs of women. For example, in the pederasty relationships, the boys were allowed freedom of choice of their partner from their suitors while in the case of women, there was no choice and they were married off at the direction of their families. The marriages occurred mainly after the men had undergone the pederasty relationships and some of these men maintained this union even when they were married to their wives.

The women were viewed as just objects of safeguarding citizenship through bearing of children. They were viewed as just exchange of property when they were married .The average Greek man had to ensure that the wife sired only his children. This made women to be under tight surveillance from the man by locking women in their houses and monitoring of their movements (Keenan, 2). If a woman was found in a comprising situation with man, the man was charged or even killed

Prostitution was loathed in the Greek society. Prostitutes were viewed as victims of excessive makeup and other ruse methods to improve their beauty. They were also hated for being deceitful and greedy for money. The sex choices that were at the disposal for the male excluding the pedesyral relationships were varied like, male and female slaves, concubines and prostitutes These choices were there for them for free or at a cost. In the pedesyral relationships, there was a deliberate attempt to avoid enjoying the sexual encounter between the two men in the union. The subjects in the relationships mostly practiced intercrural sex where there was no penetration and alternatives like outer course were practiced though the extent to which how this was controlled is not clear (Thornton, 54). The other homosexual relationship that was practiced in the Greek society occurred within the noble social drinking community parties which was termed symposium. The activities during the drinking spree included games, and entertainment and casual sex between the drinking aristocratic groups and female and male slaves. These relationships between the drunkards and the slave boys and guys led to the creation of artistic work in Greece that had the deepest expressions of love in Europe.

The most common method of practicing sex in ancient Greece was the missionary position where the act was performed in bed hastily in bed as it was supposed to be for procreation only. Women had to contend for sex with the adolescent boys and the slaves from his husband. There were few sex taboos in the Greek society and practices such as incest and rape were prevalent although they were regarded as a norm in the society. In ancient Greece, these homosexual relationships were not restricted to men only and there were lesbian relationships as well but they were not as prevalent as those of the male counterparts as the society frowned upon them (Sinos, 39).  The ancient Greek society did not use the sexual preferences of the population to categorize the society into homosexual or heterosexual but rather on the function each played in the action order reflect on the submissive roles women and the young boys played in the society.

Adult homosexual relationships between men were frowned upon and the society regarded them as showing the signs of feminism. The insistence of the Greek society towards maintaining relationships only between adult men and young men and young women were supposed to keep the society with the view that masculine practices were a preserve of adult men and high social status. Feminism was viewed a preserve of women and the youth and was associated with low social standing. In summary, it is evident that all sexuality roles in the ancient Greek society were viewed only in the eyes of men and women occupied a very passive role in determining the sexual roles in the society.