Part One
Socialism refers to the ownership of general property by the people or the state and has at times been related to the rights of a government in power over the revenue of production and manufacture (Butgereit and Carden, 2011, p.41). It is important to note that this form of property ownership will be at the hands of the people but controlled by the government voted into office at a stipulated time. Communism on the other hand has been defined as the ownership of property by a given community with each person having equal rights over the same. In other words, communism aims at equality at the social level through the economy of a given jurisdiction (Butgereit and Carden, 2011, p.42). In other words, there will be no private ownership of property with the aim of ensuring said equality.
The major similarity between the two forms of property ownership lies in the fact that they both call for control over properties to be placed at the hands of the people. In addition, both ideologies dictate a form of equality between people in the management and ownership of property. The difference is apparent in the views regarding private properties. Socialism dictates the narrowing of private property rather than the complete eradication of the same. In fact, the added role of the government is according to socialists, the redistribution of wealth among a given population as a step towards equality (Butgereit and Carden, 2011 p. 43).
In “World Civilizations: The Global Experience” Stearns, Schwartz, and Adas (2004) attribute the rise of property ideologies to “philosophers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau were widely read. Secondly, more and more Europeans were part of the commercial economy. Commercial wealth challenged traditional notions of the right to rule. Thirdly, the population revolution” (p. 133). The ideas of philosophers fuelled a need among the people to follow what the intellectuals deemed appropriate while at the same time, the population rise and rights to property only served as a motivator to the peoples’ desires to gain control over properties.
With the existing systems giving more voice to the people, strike actions had more effect as the state was forced to listen to the grievances of the public (Brzechczyn, 2002, p.118). From the views of renowned philosophers, the European populations were more aware of their rights especially with regard to the forms of ideologies with which the countries were governed. In turn, strikes had potential to change the functioning of the government as evidenced by Brzechczyn (2002) argument that independent social forces had profound effect on the communist authorities (p. 118).
As stated before, the views of European philosophers were considered sacred by the locals and were in turn implemented by the people in their understanding of both socialism and communism. As a result, the advantages of both ideologies were presented to the population who in turn failed to understand the full meaning of the systems (Stearns, Schwartz, and Adas, 2004, p. 131).
With regard to the First World War, while the rest of Europe sought after communism and socialism, German adopted nationalism in which rather than the people working for themselves they sought to labor for the nation (Butgereit and Carden, 2011, p.42). With these different concepts, Germany steadily rose in economic and political power which in turn caused the power imbalance in the continent. Stearns, Schwartz, and Adas (2004) concur with this when they state that, “The causes of the First World War included militant nationalism” (p. 276) therefore communism and socialism were an indirect cause of the Great War simply because while most of Europe adopted them to ensure equality, countries like German caused unrest with nationalism. It can be argued that German overestimated its power and initiated the war as an act of rebellion to the European Union. In turn, there came a division among the populations as some opted for communism and others socialism. In addition, the fear of impending war saw the people and administrations join forces as unlike nationalism that solely looked at the government, they had a common ground in equal distribution of power among the people.
Part Two
The years leading to the First World War were marked with civil and political unrest in the center of Europe as factors like nationalism and alliances came to play in decisions to go to war. In “The Origins of World War I” Hamilton and Herwig (2003), concur with this notion when they state that the causes of the Great War were, “nationalism, militarism, newspapers, public opinion, and insurgent masses” (10) Empire and Imperialism refers to the ability of the involved powers to gain support from allies through treaties and other forms of agreement such as trade. Hamilton and Herwig (2003) suggest that the intercontinental outreach that offered rivaling supremacies with more militia power sealed the events that led to the war (10). A good instance lies in the fact that Germany had to participate in the War simply because they were bound to Austria-Hungary in an alliance treaty.
Finding basis on the real life accounts of soldiers’ narrations of life in the trenches, it is safe to conclude that from the mud to the cold they experienced, survival was hard yet a must for all the soldiers (Scott, 2002, 1). For both fronts, soldiers were forced to endure long hours in wet, cold, and muddy trenches in a bid to keep the other side from attacking. Scott (2002) attributes this to the battle grounds being several feet above sea level, meaning the soldiers were bound to encounter water with minimal digging (6). In fact, a proper trench was always deeper than the height of the soldiers to ensure protection from the enemy forces.
The determination of soldiers to win the war for their sides was evidenced in the letters they sent home to their families. Scott (2002) documents that despite the harsh conditions at the frontline; soldiers rarely gave thorough details to their families (6). In addition, each side was fiercely loyal to their authorities and in turn, none would risk appearing weak to their counterparts or risk going back on treaties and alliances (Scott, 2002, 10).
According to Marwick, Emsley and Simpson (2001) while the men went into battle the women were left to their own devices and were for the first time in history depended on to ensure the economic, social and even political stabilities of the countries at war (72). This was back at home, in the war zone, women served as nurses and medical practitioners as they tended to the wounded. At the same time, to aid in the war effort, women took to packing and sending rations to the troops and in turn ensured provisions such as food and medicines were in constant supply to the fighting soldiers (Marwick, Emsley and Simpson, 2001, 74). A good example is Austria that allowed its women onto the battle trenches to ensure the soldiers had the necessary supplies. This was done while the army officers taught said women on handling firearms, presumably for protection.
World War one ended on a series of treaties that sought to ensure that such an event will never happen again in history. The most prominent outcome was the defeat of Germany that in turn saw it lose a lot of its militia and political powers while in turn placing the country under debt to the winning powers (Marwick, Emsley and Simpson, 2001, 85). The European society had however experienced a major shift in its ideologies as was evidenced by the involvement of women in what had previously been considered a man’s field. Marwick, Emsley and Simpson (2001) coincide with this when they state that, the war saw a change in, “social reform and welfare policies; material conditions; customs and behavior; the role and status of women; high and popular culture; institutions and values” (1). In other words, the European society had to change its ideologies as women had tasted the new form of purpose outside the household and with it came a determination to ensure it stays the same.
References
Brzechczyn, K. (2002). The Collapse of Real Socialism in Eastern Europe versus the Overthrow of the Spanish Colonial Empire in Latin America: An Attempt at Comparative Analysis. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Vol. 1, No. 2, 105–133 .
Butgereit, B. & Carden, B. B. (2011 ). Capitalism,Socialism And Calculation. The Authors. Economic Affairs , 41-45.
Stearns, N. P., Schwartz, B. S., & Adas, M. B. ( 2004 ). World Civilizations: The Global Experience. London: Longman Publishing Group.
Marwick, A., Emsley, C., & Simpson, W. (2001). Total War and Historical Change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Hamilton, H. H., & Herwig, R. H. (2003). The Origins of World War I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, M. (2002). Soldiers’ letters as testimonies of war. In J. S. Hunter, The Great Sacrifice? Social & Cultural Histories of World (pp. 1-14). Wellington : Victoria University of Wellington .
