Adam Ulam – Do You Agree?

“The Bolsheviks did not seize power in this year of revolutions. They picked it up. First autocracy, then democracy capitulated to the forces of anarchy. Any group of determined men could have done what the Bolsheviks did in Petrograd in October 1917: seize a few key points of the city and proclaim themselves the government.” – Adam Ulam

Do you agree with this statement?

Before answering this question, it is first necessary to define a few key terms. The “year of revolutions” relevant to this question here is the year 1917, and the Revolution which we’re primarily concerned with here is October Revolution in the year of 1917. Also, “picking up power” here essentially means the launching of a coup, and the taking over the reins of the nation thereafter.

Firstly, it must be agreed that the October Revolution was essentially a coup, as relatively few people took part in the seizure of power, as the organized political party of the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Trotsky were the only party responsible for launching the coup. The smooth transition of power that took place with relatively little bloodshed was also a clear indication that the “revolution” was indeed a coup. And thus, in launching the coup, the Bolsheviks were effectively “picked up” the reins of power, while giving the impression of a mass operation.

Secondly, the Provisional Government had also been fatally weakened due to a number of reasons, setting the right conditions for a coup led by a determined and organized political group to occur. In the period known as the July Days in 1917, the political mood did actually swing to the right, or in other words, sympathetic towards the Provisional Government. This was a result of the crushing of the uprising by the workers and the soldiers in Petrograd. The Soviet restores order, and Kerensky becomes the head of the new Provisional Government. However, an attempt by the commander-in-chief of the army, Kornilov, to establish a right-wing dictatorship failed spectacularly, and Kornilov’s dismissal as the commander-in-chief by Kerensky subsequently weakened the Provisional Government’s position fatally. With Kornilov defeated, the political mood swung back to the left again, and the workers’ movement thereby resumed. This set the correct political climate for a revolution to occur, with the polarization of political forces within Russia having left the weakened, centrist Provisional Government in a political void. This, on the surface, meant that “any group of determined men” could have done what the Bolsheviks achieved in 1917.

However, there is evidence to suggest that, on a deeper level, not “any group of determined men” could have achieved the successful takeover of power in 1917 too, as the role of the Bolsheviks appears to have been pivotal. In particular, the forceful leadership of Vladimir Lenin, and the careful planning of Leon Trotsky was essential to ensuring that the coup took place.

Lenin’s bold decision to slip back into Petrograd in October was a key moment for the development of the October Revolution. Once in Petrograd, he attended a meeting of the Bolshevik Central Committee, and convinced them to begin planning an insurrection. By sheer force of his personality, he was able to convince the Committee that the insurrection, if it were ever to occur, needed to take place before the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets, such that Bolshevik control could be presented to the Congress as an established fact. This role that Lenin played was essential, for the other leaders of the Bolsheviks would not have started planning for an armed insurrection that was to occur before the Congress, or even an insurrection at all. Trotsky subsequently took on the role of planning and organizing the details of the coup which took over all control of Petrograd on the day before the meeting of Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets. In essence, this meant that the Bolshevik October Revolution could never have occurred as it did without Lenin and Trotsky’s involvement.

The role of the Bolsheviks as an organized political party in its own right was pivotal as well. They had chosen very carefully party slogans that reflected the aims and concerns of the masses, and thus, there was no other political party that was as popular as the Bolsheviks. There was also not a single political entity that could gather sufficient popular support to resist the coup led by the Bolsheviks, as was found out by the Provisional Government. Troops under the control of the Bolsheviks, namely the Red Guards and the workers’ militia took effective control over all of Petrograd swiftly, and without significant resistance. The garrison originally under the control of the Provisional Government largely stayed neutral, unwilling to defend the highly unpopular government, and capitulated easily against the forces of the Bolsheviks. As such, no other political group could have achieved what the Bolsheviks managed in the October Revolution.
In conclusion, if were to look at the statement by Adam Ulam again,

“The Bolsheviks did not seize power in this year of revolutions. They picked it up. First autocracy, then democracy capitulated to the forces of anarchy. Any group of determined men could have done what the Bolsheviks did in Petrograd in October 1917: seize a few key points of the city and proclaim themselves the government.”

it must then be said that the Bolsheviks did indeed “pick up” the reins of power in the October Revolution, amidst the political void created by the fatally weakened Provisional Government. Autocracy and democracy did indeed capitulate to the forces of anarchy too, as is witnessed in the abdication of the Tsar and the self-inflicted defeat of the Provisional Government. What we would contend with is that “any group of determined men could have done what the Bolsheviks did in Petrograd in October 1917”. There was no other political entity which could muster sufficient popular support to have achieved a successful coup and held on to power, and there was no other group possessing the equivalent of Lenin’s and Trotsky’s pivotal leadership of the Bolsheviks.

- brought to you by Andrew, Clinton and Jian Xiong

 

the russian revolution: bolsheviks rise to power (samuel!)

“The October Revolution was the result of popular uprising which had very little to do with the Bolsheviks” – The Libertarians

Do you agree with the statement?

Popular uprising was the result of a discontent society, which was essential for the russian revolution to occur. With the middle class wanting more say in running the country, and the peasantes, influenced by the middle class on the idea of revolution, there was no need for the bolsheviks to bring in the ideas and play a part in the revolution. Moroever, with the plight of the peasants, having little land while paying high taxes, with little food while having high taxes, there was much discontent amongst the peasantes. This economic factor played a huge role in causing popular uprising. Furthermore, with the loss in World War 1, there was another blow to the pride of the people.

However, the final straw would be the when the poplulace took the inititative, without the bolsheviks’ influence to stage a protest. However, how the the russian populace got the their revolution ideas from?

This has to stem not from the discontent from the people but rather the bolsheviks, because the Lenin led party enforced ideas and spread “propoganda” to the people. They were also pivotal in providing them with ideas of marxism, that was key in the revolution. Moreover, it may not be true that the revolution took place since the provisional government was too weak only. The bolsheviks found the opportunity to take advantage of the provisional government’s weakness by providing the needs of the people. Hence, they played an important role in manipulating the plight of the people by persuading their discontent to the bolshevik’s cause, which shows that the bolsheviks did indeed play an important role in the revolution.

Certainly, it is up to the citizens to follow the leadership simply because a country is made up of people. Without the support from the people, the bolsheviks would not even feature in the revolution. But, the bolsheviks used the frustration of the people to their favour by emphasizing their plight and thus, manipulating them to their cuase. Therfore there was indeed a popular uprising but this uprising had a lot to do with the bolsheviks. In fact, the bolsheviks were the underlying factor in influencing people to revolt, which allowed them to gain control of Russia, especially through the October revolution.

The next criteria for disproving the statement would be the success of the revolution. Back in 1905, without the bolsheviks, popular uprising alone was not successful as there was a slight prospect of a revolution occuring but it gradually died down without a “figure head”. With the bolsheviks during the October revolution, the people did eventually take control of Russia. Of course, it can be argued that there are many factors, other than the bolsheviks that affected this, but ultimately, the bolsheviks did play a major role in making the difference.

Hence, I disagree to the Libertarians viewpoint to a large extent.

samuel , rich, jun sean

 

The Epic of the Recipe for борщ (Borscht)

I. Prologue

There was no money
There was no roti
Neither private property
There was no sympathy, there
Was no empathy
There was no more happy
‘Cos Russia all went crazy
And they all began to go mati.
Riddled in deep insanity.

II. A Lousy Chef

The Tsar was crap
No political map
Such a great big gap
Between classes’ salary cap(s)
So the people got quite mad

Chorus:
While the Kronstadt led
Russia bled and the situation got bad
So society had to collapse
Because the Tsar was real crap.
(And all because the Tsar
Was a piece of crap.)

III. Garnishes and Spices

In a sealed capsule
Coming home for a meal
How was Lenin to continue?
With masterplans anew
And a Communist view
He talked to the Soviets till
They split and then began to kill
But it was the people who had to pay the humongous bill.

IV. Epilogue

Was a crap, was a crap, was a was a crap; Was a crap, was a crap, was a real crap!
Nicholas the Second was really quite crap, didn’t have a political map!

(Suggested to be sung to the tune of 发如雪 by Jay Chou)

 

Scrapping history, rewriting it, scrapping histra, resurrecting it.

well, the title does sound radical, but this is just some of my comments on hsitory and histra.

There are a lot of things we learnt for the past year in histra, and you guys have all learnt a lot too. Have you guys ever asked yourself the question why you are learning all this friggin stuff? what do i care whether the french revolution was caused by the mass random coincidental spontaneous action of an astronomical number of french peasants rioting over an excess of gastric juices to food ratio? What do i care over the random philosophical conjectures of a group of dead white males in a vain attempt to explain away the sudden coincidental epileptic seizure of a vast number of french peasants? what do i care of what year, date, time, second the first shot was fired in the bastille?

The pioint is, there is much more to history than a random mental excercise produced for the torture of a group of young people in a school in some sunny equatorial island. History is about humans, and the human condition. It is about the problems that we face, from day-to-day decisions to the strange heroic dilemmas to the past. History is about the takeaway we get after we have learnt all these random facts, and the strange mental constructs used to explain them. After we leave from each history class, we are supposed to be wiser, better people, not people whose backs are weighed down an angle 1 degree more by the weight of 100 grams of extra ink on paper. The way we scribble notes fervently while staring at the blackboard, one can almost see us as some strain of kiasu lab-rats.

We must not sacrifice our time and effort for things that are not worth it in the long run. One of my classmates (no names) said the other day, in a usual bitchy tone : ‘oh, but i not woried for history one lah, i got fourteen upon fifteen on the previous essay, so i bound to get four point O.’ I see people writing notes so … so…. forcefully that the table goes into vibration mode! This is so friggin stupid. I can conclude that the vast majority of muggers in this school taking history have not increased their knowledge of history by an inch when they graduate.

We in history RA are supposed to be diferent from all the rest. Due to some degree of acuity and clarity of our thinking, we are supposedly supposed to be able to tackle the most difficult of syllabi and digest it to such an extent. we are supposedly supposed to be so talented that we can afford to stamp our essays with the hallmark of our own individuality and we will not get penalised. And we are put together in one class,  so that through our close proximity to each other and our teacher our intellect may be stimulated by mutual exchange of ideas.

History RA as I see it is not some place where all we tackle is the same version of the same syllabi just increased in weight. They say, ‘but depth also’. What is depth? is it not that when we leave the class, the lesson should impact us more than other lessons? is it not that our thoughts should be freed, we would be more complete persons? is it not that the lesson should, in some way, stimulated us intellectually, and made us more inquisitive as historians? We should not take a magnifying glass and sweatishly observe the grain and strokes on some famous painting, much less be muggerous and kiasu and ’oh, hegel damn difficult ah, i hope he doesnt come up in the next essay lor’. Rather, we should sit back and observe the completeness, the beauty of the painting as a whole, the idea in the artist’s mind at the time of its conception. We should take it ’less’ yet ‘more’ seriously. if not we just studied and mugged a whole lot of friggin facts with no usefulness whatsoever, and we would have wasted fifteen dollars worth of pen ink and twenty dollars worth of paper and pencil lead, and an incalculable amount of brain space and hours of our lives.

Lets clarify, lets put things into perspective. First, we are not here to mugg and to waste brain space. We should take notes, no denying that fact, but we are not here to take notes. Second, we are here because we are supposedly better, and better people need each other to become betterer. Each one of us is a contribution to a vibrant spectrum of thought present in this class, making it a vigorous, dynamic group of young historians, fiercely independent. everyone should be more personal and more serious about their own views, and be more willing to share them. This is called taking history seriously as a humance, and not as a muggerous grade-point excercise. Lastly, our lessons must increase in depth, not weight. We need to disscuss on a whole new level, disscuss about things that will have changes to us, relevant things that will shape our minds as young growing adults. Economic theory and so forth, definitely, but thats not the point: why do we even need it? We need to keep the watermelon, and not throw it away for the intense gaze and study of a few sesame seeds.

We are all in Histra for a reason, You one reason, me one, and so forth. we are all here for a purpose. And all of us have the calibre and the type of mind to take history as not just a subject, but a cause, humance and all. It is time for us to fulfill this potential. Few of us are ever going to take a course with as much freedom and intellectual rigour as histra, and i think we should all use this opportunity to the fullest extent.  

Tian Chen.

 

Shang Xuan’s post

As defined by Peter N. Stearns, the Industrial Revolution was “a massive set of changes that begin when radical innovations in technologies and organizational forms are extensively introduced in key manufacturing sectors and that end, in the truly revolutionary phase, when these innovations are widely, though not necessarily universally, established in the economy at large.”

Despite the years that have lapsed since the beginning of the Revolution in the 18^th Century, the afore-mentioned changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution are still apparent till this very day. Technological advancements had most certainly gone through a massive period of development over the span of the Revolution. Industry after industry was planted in quick succession, and breakthroughs in the technologies of mass production were commonplace. To cater to the perennial increase in demand of goods produced, it was necessary for newer and better machinery to take the place of obsolete versions. This continual process of improvement could probably account for the many of the state-of-the-art technologies we have access to this very day, all of which serve the purpose of enhancing one’s efficiency in his/her field of work, leading me to my second point.

With the introduction of high-tech equipment, we are all expected to fulfill our tasks in amazingly short amounts of time given. The emphasis placed on efficiency and productivity has increased, parallel to the increased use of machinery over manual labour. In a bid to prove one’s usefulness in his workplace, it is important that he maximizes his productivity. From this, it would not be unfair to deduce that one’s value to an organization was almost solely dependent upon how efficient he was in the completion of his tasks.

This would invariably lead to the stiff competition so prevalent in the modern, 21^st-century society. When industrialization was sparked off in Britain, the onus was on the other countries to catch up or risk being left in the dust of Britain’s trail to the forefront of Europe’s economy. On a smaller scale, the same applies to industries and companies. To secure deals and businesses, it would be crucial for an industry to try out-muscling another. Competition among schools even, to outdo one another-the same trends are easily observable in today’s world.

The Industrial Revolution of the 18^th and 19^th Centuries has had a profound impact on the world, even up till this very day. And in many ways, affected each of our lives.

 

Tian Chen’s post

The Industrial revolution. While much has been said about the industrial revolution and what it means for the large scale factors, such as the economy and social structure, little has been mentioned about its effect on the individual with the three-hundred year lifespan to live through it. This is important, because the basic definition of history relies on experience, which in turn implies basically that there must be individuals to live through it. This passage will attempt to discern the industrial revolution’s effect on the individual, not through an analysis of the changes as they happen, which may be inaccurate, but through a before-after comparison from which major effects may be discerned. The trends in history are thick, and it is up to God or the helicopter historian to decipher them. The modern age is defined by planes of function, as are the ages before it, by planes on which humans may function, determined by conditions beyond his control. To make an analogy, a plane to a human would be like a cage to a hamster. While the hamster is fed, moved and entertained by a strange five-fingered appendage whose motive he cannot hope to understand, so the human is fed with food from people far from him, that reach him due to reasons he does not know and through pathways he never went, and the price is set by things he may never even have heard of. His workplace, the object by which his productivity is harnessed, is rather like the hamster’s wheel, and even the exclusively human privilege, that of entertainment, of brain food, from the news, advertisements, the government, books, come from other places, from the hands  of people we will not know. His social circle, determined by the rules of physical meeting, will inevitably collapse around the twin spheres of his family and wider workplace.  While this is an oversimplification, this is a model for almost every single individual and will suffice as a description for the life of an individual in the modern age. It is therefore not difficult to imagine a glass cage where the human carries out all his activities, where food arrives via the action of ‘other forces’ and prefabricated entertainment fills up his time between repeated bouts at the hamster’s wheel, where he exerts himself doing a repeated process. The workplace—that is the nexus of this society. One may ask, what keeps this society running? From where does the feeding appendage arise? All the services that the individual is able to access—how are they all maintained? It is through the workplace, through the combined work of millions of individuals, each performing one step in some large reaction, that proceeds to keep this whole process going. If all individuals where to stop their processes, the whole system would collapse.  The processes going on in such a society may be compared to those that took place in pre-industrial societies. Those that took place in pre-industrial processes and that included a large swathe of the population, mainly included farming and other subsistence processes. In such a plane, there was no question as to what these activities were for-they were for the production of food, for survival. Each year the food would be enough to last into the next, and if the harvest was good, an excess may be sold. The primary determining characteristic of civilization was that of the harvest, the human-induced monoculture, which allowed for human population densities beyond what nature would allow. Other emergent processed, such as government, dealt mainly with the issues that monoculture raised, and commerce consisted only as a small-scale exchange of services on a local level. In the modern scenario, with its characteristic supply chains, and industrial processes, the plane of the individual was confined to that of his job—what manner of hamster’s wheel he had, whether menial, physical or mental. Society, once horizontally equal in farming, became organized into vertical chains of roles, each performing his mundane task, only to contribute to a larger orderly emergent process we call industry and services. This has the effect of liberating the individual from his basic needs that once tied him to the land, and assigning him a job. It also has the effect of maintaining the illusion that particular conditions, such as food in the supermarket and water in the pipes and an image on the television, are there without anyone maintaining them, mainly because these processes are now maintained behind the scenes with scores of workers with this as their job.  This can be broadly summed up as the process of specialization. The industrial revolution has led a radical change in humanity. Once, every household has had to take care of every single one of its needs, and now that extreme specialization, to the extent that each person performs a repeated task over and over, has come, there is no need for this. Each person now has these conditions provided for, and lives in his own cage, with mysterious ‘other people’ doing many jobs for them. From the viewpoint of the individual, life has gotten so much more boring, but so much simpler too.  This has had radical impacts of every aspect of society, especially on the field of governance. Once, government was tied to the land, and now that the land is no longer important a new identity was to be found.  Society and culture down to the individual could be standardized, and governments could wield totalitarian power as none did before. This, of course, had global repercussions in the world wars. This also opened up the space for new developments to occur as never before. Within a few short years enough scientific discoveries could be made to shame the Egyptian’s five thousand years. The future suddenly looked markedly different, with possibilities ranging from nuclear war to eugenic utopia suddenly opened. The industrial revolution has freed the individual, while restricting his freedoms also. It has opened up new possibilities. Thus is its legacy.

 

Jun Yong has posted late, i’m sorry. I really am. I have my reasons

Hello guys, this’ll be my first post (yay, gives synthetic laughter)

With regards to the question:

Discuss the impacts of the industrial revolution and how it has affected the way you live today.

 Here is my response:

The word that would very nicely sum it all up is ‘everything’. There is no doubt that the industrial revlution is a watershed event in human history and its effects go beyond what we see around us. The change is one that is not only on the surface but it innate and intangible. The industrial revolution is one of the major events (think the transition from neolithic to agriculture-based society) that come along once in a very long time and completely alters the entire ‘framework of our existence’. It literally shaped our lives, every single part of it.

Production, transport, machinery are some of the examples of ‘entities’ that have adopted a new face after undergoing the revolution, but all in all in the major and underlying ecnomic change that the revolution had brought about is how we as humans harvest power(or anything else for that matter) and how we manage to turn them into what we want/need. And everything just follows through, when that transitional phase has been made. The world economy or the economoy of a particular country/region/continent will experience tremendous growth no doubt. And an earthquake of a change such as this increase in output will invariably have profound impacts of human life as we know it, take for example: increase the the inequality in the standard of living, support higher tax revenues, provide for rapidly growing populations (that is also most probably a result of the economic boost), or change the and possibly improve material conditions for the masses. The changes vary with each different part of the world and i shall not analyse the impacts country by country or region by region because the notes would have already done that and it would be completely pointless to repeat.

I personally believe that the industrial revolution is a pro-capitalist movement that cemented the position of capitalism as the major economy type in the world. First of all, with the policies guiding the industrial policies, allows for the common man to engage in the market inwhatever way he chooses. And with the establishment of technology as a major factor in production, it becomes apparent that whoever is able to engage in the technological advancement and reap more from the open market will be a winner. With the widening of income gaps and the formation of olgopolies in the world economy, it spells capitalist in quite a obvious way.

The change in that the industrial revolution brought about is obvious, but the nature of that selfsame change is arguable. Though the ‘proponents of progress’ always argue that the change is one for the better, i think that such a statement is untrue and comes from a very narrow point of view. It is evident that with the rise of industry was brought about by technology and with the ever growing emphasis on technology, it leads to a technology dominated world. Beyond any reasonable duobt, technology affects every single part of our life, it controls the way which we looks at the world. I mean want to buy a drink? press a freakin button. Want to withdraw some cash from the atm, freakin robot yells at you. Okay that was a random bout of insanity that just came over for a moment. pardon my atrocious spelling and grammar. Now i shall veer back on track. However informal and foolish that statement was, it encompasses a certain hint of truth behind it, everything that we depend on now, everything that we take for granted in our everyday lives is a result (direct or indirect) of the industrial revolution. No doubt it spelled a great improvement in the human condition, however negative ramifications are also inevitable and they are big.

When we talk about industrialization, Globalization is inevitably dragged into the picture. The industrial revolution is, beyond reasonable doubt, the largest driving force of world history during the 19th and 20th century, and as such it has affected how the world has grown. The characteristics of the industrial revolution, for example: work organization, specialization, are factors that infuse themselves into our way of life. With the rise of such global uniformities, there is a set of universal principles and ideals which we accord ourselves by. There is a severe loss in uniqueness and prevalence of individual cultures, everyone has the same goals to work towards because, the industrial world provides for a playground whereby a person’s success can be measured by the amount of material wealth he possesses. Though seemingly baseless and hung in the air, the world has changed in such a way and i believe that each and everyone can vouch for that.

Now on the the more tangible negative drawbacks of the IR (yes i’m lazy to type, so sue me…): environmental damage, pollution etc. are all extremely eminent issues that plague our current world and the world economy, which is the direct result of the IR, is to blame.

The concept of progress will perpetually stay as subjective as ever, and so will the impacts of the IR, however, in my personal opinion, it has done more diservice than good to the world.

Jooon Yong

 

Talk on Leadership in Singapore: Past, Present and Future (delivered by Mr Ho Kwon Ping)

Hey guys,

Thought I’d share a summary of what the talk last Saturday on “Leadership in Singapore: Past, Present and Future” was about.

We may be doing an assignment for the National Essay Competition too, so you might want to take a look. D:

Jian Xiong D:

–

(original post at: http://eregon.blogspot.com/2008/04/talk-on-leadership-in-singapore-past.html)

Had gone down for the Launch Ceremony of the National Essay Competition and the guidebook titled “Singapore: The First Ten Years of Independence” last Saturday. And I must say the place where it was held, was really cool. POD@National Library ftw! (it’s a pity no one brought a good camera to snap shots of the spectacular view up there though)

There was a complimentary copy of the guidebook given too, and it was really a great gesture on the part of the organizers and sponsors to provide every student who turned up for the Launch Ceremony with a copy. As a compilation of photos and sources regarding the first ten years of independence in Singapore, it is a real gem-like resource of Singapore history.

Check out details of the book and the competition here. D:

But what I personally found the most interesting that day was the Talk on “Leadership in Singapore: Past, Present and Future” which was delivered by Mr Ho Kwon Ping.

For the uninitiated, check out this site to get a sense of who the speaker really is. And then you will see why we were a little awed even before coming for the talk.

The talk itself, was really interesting, peppered with little anecdotes from the speaker, and it was one of those talks where you don’t actually feel bored even after listening for a pretty long time.

Mr Ho first presented his views on historiography (although he didn’t exactly state so), and stated what he thought the purpose of history was. I shall be delving into this in particular, since historiography is an area which I’m particularly interested in (zomg, what have sec 3 term 1 history lessons done to me).

Now, one key purpose which he identified here, that was of particular interest was history as a “disaster-prevention device”. And this was a rather interesting viewpoint, as while we’ve (our class) discussed views on history serving to provide lessons from the past, we’ve not exactly viewed it as a “disaster-prevention device” as mentioned by Mr Ho.

He takes the view that lessons from history may not necessarily be passed down, as every generation will tend to define its own particular era, often ignoring whatever “lessons” that may have been passed down by the past. However, he also contends that the extremely grave mistakes of the past cannot be ignored, and for that reason, history continues to provide some form of “lessons”, in the hope of preventing the next Holocaust, or the next dropping of an A- or N- bomb.

The other view which Mr Ho proclaims as one in which he subscribes to is that of history being an identity-building tool. He proposes that every one of us has a innate need to belong to a community, and history greatly helps to achieve this need in every one of us, by building a common and shared past amongst members of a community.

And it is all these with mind, that he begins on the topic proper – that of leadership in Singapore through the ages.

The focus of all the talk on leadership, however, was on the Old Guard, or the First Cabinet. And this focus was one which was a little disappointing for me, for I’d thought more mention of other aspects of leadership in Singapore, especially in non-political areas, could have been touched on.

But the way the speaker approached the topic was really insightful, firstly establishing the importance of political leadership in people’s lives, using case studies from Singapore’s history. A standard definition of leadership is then provided, and then these cases are then examined in the framework of the definition (and in the light of certain key leadership qualities that were identified too).

Mr Ho then presented his personal take on leadership toward the end of his talk, (didn’t get this down word for word, so pardon any mistakes), which was something about the leader as the voice through which the fears of people he leads are transformed into hope.

Finally, the speaker’s idea of the leader with the small ‘l’ and the Leader with the big ‘L’ was indeed a very intriguing one. Leaders with the big ‘L’s need not necessarily be better, just necessarily more high-profile. Also, leaders with the small ‘l’s would require the same leadership qualities too as the Leaders.

(The Leadership Studies people SO should have come…)

In sum, a truly thought-inspiring talk, and a (relatively) well-spent Saturday morning.

 

Where are we now?

Rotting at home does wonders for your brain, especially when you go through them notes one more time. Here are some thoughts I had earlier today as I went through the readings again. Bear with me

I touched on the eventual obsoleteness of the cottage industries as the factories grew, and from the reading, Stearns elaborated on the “cultural downgrad[ing]“ of the elderly as the new industry demanded higher levels of energy and a high leaning ability. This was the obvious step forward at the time, as the Industrial Revolution violently dragged Britain out of its economic stupor and revitalised it. But look at the situation now, as there is the continual push and emphasis on working from home, and almost paradoxically revitalising the workforce by getting the elderly to rejoin it, or prolong their presence in it.

This is a “step back”, but not definitely a regression of any sorts. The way I see it, its progress up and down, as well as back and forth, on the scale that we use to define the Industrial Revolution. At any other time in history, this would have been regarded as a regression, no doubt, but the nature of our times allow for us to see it in a different light.

Like what I mentioned in my first post, right now we have a world where connectivity is endless, where data sent and received instantaneously is far too late. We live in a world no longer hungry for manpower, but one where brainpower is the new deal. There was the need to force women and children into the factories, and to stop the elderly from going into those same facilities, because there was the need to provide high quality labour in the shortest time possible. Now, what matters is what you can spew from your mind, and it doesnt matter where you work or how old you are. The stakes have changed, the world has changed, and now, the focus is slowly shifting back to where we started from, maximising our efficiency by going back to previously inefficient practices, getting the most we can out of every individual.

Which leads me to believe that we are on the verge of a new Industrial Revolution. After a few horrendously corny attempts at naming it, I shall leave it (thankfully!) unnamed. But my point is this – there is going to be an upheaval in our society as a result of the way we work, as a result of where we’re going to be working from, and as a result of who we are. And surprisingly, we’re going back to the power of the individual over the power of tools, the power struggle that started the moment the first Nearthandal started using a fork and spoon over his hands. We are taking this step back, but invariably, its a step forward, and because of what we have on our plate now, we can afford to throw away our forks and spoons, and use our hands to pull ourselves further than we’ve ever gone before.

I also wonder, whether the whole issue of this Industrial Revolution has been mistakenly classified under history, because the more I look at Stearns’ approach, the more I’m convinced his emphasis on the changes that affected not only the technological and organisational aspects of society, but also the, to name a few, “relationships between parents and children and art” would be more at home being classified as sociology (despite the frequent, and admittedly justified, interchangability with “history”). When you look at how the Industrial Revolution affected family relationships and art (!), you invariably have to draw links to more salient issues, i.e. politics. Better done through a sociological viewpoint? I think so. But then again, most historians are sociologists, one way or another.

pfft.

 

As defined by Peter N. Stearns, the Industrial Revolution was “a massive set of changes that begin when radical innovations in technologies and organizational forms are extensively introduced in key manufacturing sectors and that end, in the truly revolutionary phase, when these innovations are widely, though not necessarily universally, established in the economy at large.” Despite the years that have lapsed since the beginning of the Revolution in the 18^th Century, the afore-mentioned changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution are still apparent till this very day.

Technological advancements had most certainly gone through a massive period of development over the span of the Revolution. Industry after industry was planted in quick succession, and breakthroughs in the technologies of mass production were commonplace. To cater to the perennial increase in demand of goods produced, it was necessary for newer and better machinery to take the place of obsolete versions. This continual process of improvement could probably account for the many of the state-of-the-art technologies we have access to this very day, all of which serve the purpose of enhancing one’s efficiency in his/her field of work, leading me to my second point. 

With the introduction of high-tech equipment, there is an increasing expectation for one to to fulfill one’s tasks in amazingly short amounts of time given. The emphasis placed on efficiency and productivity has increased, parallel to the increased use of machinery over manual labour. In a bid to prove one’s usefulness in his workplace, it is important that he maximizes his productivity. From this, it would not be unfair to deduce that one’s value to an organization was almost solely dependent upon how efficient he was in the completion of his tasks. This would invariably lead to the stiff competition so prevalent in the modern, 21^st-century society. When industrialization was sparked off in Britain, the onus was on the other countries to catch up or risk being left in the dust of Britain’s trail to the forefront of Europe’s economy. On a smaller scale, the same applies to industries and companies. To secure deals and businesses, it would be crucial for an industry to try out-muscling another. Competition among schools even, to outdo one another-the same trends are easily observable in today’s world. 

Hence, the Industrial Revolution of the 18^th and 19^th Centuries has most certainly had a profound impact on the world, which is still evident till this very day. And in many ways, on a scale different to each individual, affected each of our lives.

-Shang Xuan