How Did Marxism Affect Asia And The Middle East

The years after World War One brought about vast changes to many parts of the world. Places like South Asia and the Middle East were able to see the need for self government away from foreign control. This sparked a number of nationalist movements during the 1920’s and 1930’s. The Middle East had to Westernize to rid foreign control while India had to be united under non-violence and Hindu values.

Confucius created the doctrine that 300 years after his death became a permanent impulse of social life in China, established rules of behaviour not only in the state, but also the family as a social unit.1

Imperialism has been one of the most powerful forces in human history, serving to set the foundation of our modern world. While this has led to the formation of a global society where cultures, ideas, and innovations are spread across countries, imperialism has also left a history of exploitation, racism, and violence that is still affecting the world today. Imperial relationships are always imbalanced when it comes to power and influence; that is, one group (known as the metropole) maintains authority and control over another group (known as the periphery) with economic, political, and cultural dominance (Spiegel 2012). There are many reasons why one group chooses to dominate the other, such as expanding territory, extracting raw resources to fuel economic development, or to spread their beliefs (i.e. religion) (Spiegel 2012). In spite of these varied reasons, one of the main motivators for imperialism began with competition between empires.

From the seventeenth century to the late twentieth century there has been a change in society creating a modernist era which saw the ending of feudalism and the devotement of capitalism. (Hudson, 2003:3) This period saw changes in the way individuals lived their lives and viewed the world; there were political changes and systems of punishment. The changes stirred

The Modernization efforts undertaken by the leadership of Iran and Turkey after World War I share numerous similarities across ideological, and social lines. Both countries shared and benefitted from strong social identities, and resistance to outside influence. While these countries were unified using comparable methods, they were also exploited to further the individual goals of both countries? respective leaders.

After World War I, the Ottoman Empire, lost their land to the Allied Powers. The British occupied the piece of land called Ottoman Syria after defeating the forces of the Turks in 1917. This land that

Historians argue that the 1917 Russian Revolution represents a major turning point in world history. Two specific pieces of evidence that support this argument is that the Revolution led to the spread of communism with the formation of the USSR and the emergence of Russia as a world power. Both of the pieces support the argument. The Revolution led to the formation of the USSR, otherwise known as the world’s first nation to base its government on the teachings and writings of Karl Marx. This event would not only be groundbreaking for Russia, but the entire globe. The formation of a communist nation meant a new battle was about to start -- the battle between communism and capitalism. The formation of the USSR would directly lead to the Cold

Confucianism and Daoism are two influential schools of thoughts that have existed in ancient China around the 6th century BCE. The former, led by the politician and philosopher Confucius, proposed that humans live in society according to a set of predefined rules and that they transform society through political action. Whereas the latter, led by the philosopher Lao-Tzu, promoted the idea of inaction; people should go with the flow instead of taking action to control their lives and dominate their surroundings. Although, at first glance Daoism and Confucianism seem to be two opposing philosophies, a more in depth analysis of two of their key ideas –filial piety and education—reveals that they do share some similarities.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was signed on May 19, 1916, and orchestrated during World War One between the governments of Great Britain and France, with the assent of Russia, a minor party to the treaty. The agreement described how the two Western powers would split the Middle East into ‘spheres of influence’, comprising of their proposed areas of direct control

During the mid to late 1800’s, Turkey lost many pieces of land by losing the war in 1829, and the Russo-Turkish Wars. Turkey lost Algeria and Tunisia to France, and Cyprus and Egypt to the United Kingdom. However, Cyprus and Egypt remained part of the Ottoman Empire until 1914. During the 1890’s a group of students and military officers secretly banded together and opposed Sultan Abdülhamit’s strict policies. The most influential group of these people was the Committee of Union and Progress. In 1908, members of this group revolted against Abdülhamit in order to force him to reinstate a constitutional government. This group made Abdülhamit surrender his throne in 1909. In 1914, the newly reinstated Ottoman Empire joined World War I on the side of the Central Powers. In 1915, the Allies tried to gain control of the

Ottoman Empire was an Islamic empire, which ruled Middle East and some other parts of the world for almost 400 years. On one hand Ottoman Empire became an ally with Germany in the First World War and on the other hand some of the Arab leaders held a revolt against the empire, which were the main reasons of its collapse. While Arab leaders were dreaming of an Arab unification, European powers were seeking their interest and try to secure the territories they took over in the war period. Versailles conference was held between Arab and the European leaders to define borders and create new states. Due to weakness of Arab leaders and their lack of experience most of the decisions were made in favor of the Europeans expectations of the state. And as a result Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon were emerged (Pappe, 2005) and (Fawcett, 2005).

Long before the end of the War, the people in the Middle East had been destined to live in new boundaries bargained in the Sykes-Picot collusion of May 1916 or officially the Asia Minor Agreement which was leaked by the Bolsheviks in 1917. Britain, France, and the Czarist Russia had awarded themselves with splintering the Ottoman’s territories among themselves as they desired i.e., Cilicia, Lebanon, and Syria for France; Iraq and Palestine for Britain; Istanbul and the straits for Russia and southwest of Turkey was occupied by Italy. Upon Russia retreat and giving up all claims and according to the collusion of 23 December 1917 between France and Britain, Kurdistan was assigned to Britain under “the English zone” of “influence”. France and Britain also added the ‘C’ zone (the Southern Anatolia) for Italy upon his learning of the agreement. Before the Sykes-Picot, the Constantinople Agreement had been concluded on 18 March 1915 among Russia, Britain, and France by which Constantinople (Istanbul) and the Turkish Straits were to be ceded to the Russians but it never implemented.

All economic theories share common roots, they attempt to address the basic question of how an economy can, and should, be maintained. One of the most influential economic philosophies is Marxism. The fact that economic theories can share common roots is especially evident in Marxism; It even shares a basic premise of laissez-faire with capitalism, a philosophy it directly contradicts (Sowell 12). In studying Marxism, two basic necessities must be addressed; the nature of Marxism and its basis, and the political and economic implications of Marxism.

To better understand the nature of Sino-Soviet relations in the twentieth century, one must analyze the emergence of communism in the respective nations of Russia and China. Communism was first developed by German philosopher Karl Marx in the 1800s, and is defined as a socioeconomic policy structured around the common ownership of property in the absence of any social distinctions such as class, wealth, or race. Marx saw this arrangement as the zenith of human society, the paragon of interaction where the resources of economic production are fully socialized and everything, from basic nutrition to education, is freely allocated based on necessity. These egalitarian doctrines and policies of social, economic, and political freedom greatly appeased to the working-class populations in politically oppressed regions of the world, especially in the situations of the repressed poor and peasant classes of early twentieth-century Russian and Chinese societies.

These movements were not able to adapt or change its methods to cater to the needs of the locals and causing their support to decrease in the long-run. This shows that there was limited growth of nationalism in the movements based on religion and culture. For instance, SI was led by two factions, one by Agus Salim and the other by the radical political party led by the ISDV. In 1918, when the Dutch sensed the radicalization in the SI, many supporters withdrew their support from the party. This caused the SI to ban joined membership in SI and other communist organisations which was based on ideology. This shows that movements that are based on religion did not grow and failed to become more radicalized which was essential for the growth of nationalism especially where colonial rule was suppressive. Thus, from here it shows that religion does not play a significant role in the growth of nationalist movements as compared to ideology.