Hi, welcome back, make yourself comfortable. Last time, I talked about communism as this new global force that, was really convulsing all the inhabited countries of the world by 1919 and 1920. Even in the United States. In Latin America. Very compelling. But perhaps even more compelling was the political movement that communism created. Anti-communism as a political force. Let's spend some more time on that now. Communism is a political movement. Very important, we understand that. It's important to think about anti- communism as a political movement. Communism was so threatening, with its war against established religion, its war against private property, its agenda to overthrow society so thoroughly, creates a huge reaction, a popular reaction. So anti-communism has a broad set of adherents and itself becomes a political movement perhaps as powerful or maybe even more powerful that communism itself. In other words, fear of communism became a powerful force of renewal for the conservative movements. Fear of communism was as powerful a rallying point as communism itself. But meanwhile as we see these battles of Reds versus Whites, communists versus anti-communists. Violent struggles. [LAUGH] What about poor old peaceful liberalism? You'll remember in earlier presentations, we really talked about the, the zenith of liberalism around the 1860s. Liberalism is suffering some hard times in this more violent era. But it does display some significant strength. You'll notice that in virtually every one of these countries, they all feel like they have to have a constitution. They all feel like they have to at least pay lip service to having a republic. The apparatus of liberalism is important because the ideas of liberalism have gained a real grip on the public imagination. That's a real strength. And indeed many of these countries we looked at, the institutions of liberalism turn out to be resilient. The new German Republic survives the Bolshevik revolutions in Southern Germany and then some of the right-wing military reactions against those revolutions. It's shaky, battered, but it comes through in the early to mid-1920s. But liberalism's great weakness in comparison to the forces of violence is that liberalism itself is not a political culture of violence. Fundamentally, liberalism is not about having a big, strong government. It's about how to limit the power of government. And, in time like these, that's a liability. Let's step back a bit. You'll remember in an earlier presentation, I talked about a 100 year struggle, starting in the 1890s. A struggle about how to organize modern industrial society. I talked about modern politics giving rise to five different families of political beliefs. We even labeled them. Just as a reminder, here is the basic description I gave. Revolutionary Socialists, Democratic Socialist, Liberals, National Conservatives, National Tradition parties. I even gave you a check list of the kind of positions that characterized each of these ideologies. By the way if, rather than make you go back and look at that presentation to see those checklists again, if you're interested, I'm not going to recapitulate them all. Here they all are, if you'd like to just review them, and see what it is each of these families of beliefs stood for. What I've done here is I've tried to represent these five political families in a way that very crudely attempts to represent how influential they were in world political life. Say, in 1900. And you'll see in 1900 I'm arguing, that the three most influential movements, at that time, were these ones that broadly speak more in the center. National Conservatives, Liberals, Democratic Socialists, with the Revolutionary Socialists kind of being the extremists on one side and the National Tradition movements, like represented by the Russian tsar for example, regarded worldwide more as the extreme on the other side. Let's look at the way these movements morphed in the aftermath of World War I. So take a look at this slide. This slide represents the top row, those sort of families of political ideas circa 1900. Notice that the three strongest are, kind of crudely speaking, in the center. And this is meant to approximate their influence in world political thinking. It's an impressionistic portrait. Folks might disagree. And it might vary country to country. But it does approximate the notion that the national tradition, represented by the Russians, are kind of a smaller outside influence here. Revolutionary socialism is seen as more extreme and somewhat marginal, over here. The predominant movements in capturing public attention are mainly these. Actually if I had to pick, probably the National Conservatives are the strongest in 1900. Kind of the top down modernizers of different stripes all over the world, from Japan to the United States. Now take a look at the way this is changed by oh, the mid-1920s. Start over here: National Tradition. These parties, in 1900, are monarchists, believe in kings and emperors. By the mid-1920s, their global influence is gone. What's taking their place as a new movement, Fascism. And Fascism is a fascinating hybrid. It picks up the belief in the purity of the nation, defending national traditions, all of that. It adds some of the top down modernizing supporters of the National Conservatives, but among the National Conservatives, people who grown intolerant of democracy and party politics; and it really picks up a lot of its energy from Revolutionary Socialists who now also want a strongly nationalist agenda. Frankly, there is no better example for Fascism and the mixed DNA it represents, then the most well know Fascist leader, Benito Mussolini of Italy. If you look at Mussolini's life story, before World War I, Mussolini is over here, he's a really a Revolutionary Socialist. He's in fact the editor of one of the leading socialist newspapers in Italy. A man you could say of the Left. During World War I, Mussolini is a fervent supporter of Italy in the war, and the liberal state shows its weakness in the prosecution of the war. After the war, he abandons the socialist movement to create a new movement, Fascism, that will take on the revolutionary ideals to reorganize a top-down modernizing fascist state. Another significant change is over here on the far left. Revolutionary Socialism, then seen as somewhat smaller in relative influence, I depict here now as Communism. Communism is organized internationally into the Communist International, which has its first big congress in 1919. And you'll notice that where I saw these three movements as more influential in 1900, by the mid-1920s, I see this new family of political movements as all being roughly comparable in their global influence. In the aftermath of the First World War, the ideology of empire is more and more an ideology that uses liberal ideals. It's no longer as fashionable to talk about the struggle for markets and natural resources among the liberal democracies. They more and more have to talk about, helping people acquire the ability to rule themselves. They may not mean it. They may be hypocritical about it. But they feel more and more the necessity to say so. And here Woodrow Wilson's rhetoric about national self-determination was very important. The need to at least appear to support that sort of ideal had a real effect on the way the colonial powers had to go about their business. It also has a real effect on the anti-imperialist movements, too. Let's think about that. To crudely simplify matters you could say in the 1800s, anti-imperialisms was mostly about: stop the foreigners. Keep them from taking over. But by the end of the 1800s, the effort to stop the foreigners, or kick them right out, has clearly failed. What anti-imperialism becomes is not so much just a movement of getting the foreigners out, Though that's an important part of it, it actually is a movement that: take over the embryonic state the foreigners have created. If the foreigners have created a thing called India, take that over. When the Dutch unify a lot of disparate Southeast Asian principalities into one thing called the Dutch East Indies, maybe that should be the new unitary state, a state that eventually will be called Indonesia. And the anti-imperialism now uses a lot of the vocabulary from the foreigners themselves, using Wilson's phrases about national self-determination right back at them. Picking up the ideology of democratic revolutions against exclusive ruling classes that don't admit the people, and even picking up some of the revolutionary vocabulary of the Communist International as well, which is overtly anti-imperialist in all of its goals. Let's zoom in for a moment on India. This is a photograph taken in 1920. In this photograph, the man at the center, his name is Rabindranath Tagore. Who is Tagore? Tagore is Bengali. He's perhaps the best know Indian literary figure of the 20th century to that point. He was the first non-Westerner to win the Nobel Prize for literature in 1913. A renowned poet, playwright, short story writer, novelist, also a commentator on politics. Tagore emphasized the spiritual quality of Indian culture, or Bengali culture, to the world. He focused on rural India, on the simple values and traditions of rural India, the ideal of the ashram. Let's take a look at the man sitting to the left of Tagore, here in this picture from 1920: Mohandas K. Gandhi. Perhaps better known as Mahatma Gandhi. This is, of course, not the stereotypical picture of Gandhi you're used to seeing. This captures Gandhi in 1920. Think about who Gandhi is. Gandhi is a man trained as a British lawyer. Three piece suits. All the rest of it. The very picture of an Edwardian gentleman. He practices law among the Indian expatriates in South Africa, becomes a dedicated opponent to British discrimination against Indians and eventually to British rule in India itself. Believes the Indians need to empower themselves. But his notion of anti-imperialism is a fusion of both Western ideas and Indian ideas. He very much believes there ought to be a nation state called India, that it ought to be organized along fairly traditional Western liberal lines, civic lines, but that the state needs to be infused with some of the spiritual qualities that many associate with a writer like Tagore, sitting next to him. You see, too, that Gandhi has discarded the Edwardian attire and has consciously adopted a simple dress, more evocative of Indian traditions than of British ones. Gandhi is a leading figure in the Indian National Congress, an effort to ally all the different kinds of political and ethnic movements in India under one civic structure that would take the place of British rule. In the 19 teens, the Indian National Congress would have been happy to have the Dominion status that the White Dominions had, like Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand. But of course, that would have required the British to treat people like Gandhi as if they were white rulers, and grant them the same kind of autonomy they were willing to grant the Australians. Now, that would have been a difficult problem. India is vastly larger than those other places. There are all kinds of ethnic and communal differences that the British and the Indians themselves would be struggling to reconcile. But by the 1920s, increasingly, the moment at which the British could have managed this problem by granting dominion status to India is passing, and the Indians are beginning to move more and more to the issue of: Should they just ask for complete independence? But let's circle back again to the basic theme of this presentation. Communism versus anti-communism as kind of the basic fault line of the new politics of the 1920s. Let me give you some illustrations of this. And I want to draw my illustrations from places that were not directly scarred by the First World War. This is the front page of the New York Times. The date, you can see at the top, October 17th, 1919. You look at the paper, the lead story over here on the right, this is a story about battles over the ratification of the treaty for the League of Nations, arguments in the Senate. But the sub-headline is already a headline right here about the Russian Revolution, report British capture Kronstadt, fleet shells Russian port, Reds leaving Petrograd. By this way, this news turned out be premature. Troops mutinous and advancing army of Yudenitch only 16 miles from city. Red retreat in Siberia. More stuff here about the League of Nations fight, but already the Russian Civil War is increasingly in the foreground. Look at this headline right here. Same page. All nations wishing peace should oppose Reds, say Allies in their note, urging a general boycott of the new Soviet government. But, that's the foreign news. Let's look at the domestic news in the New York Times that day. Story after story. How about this story right here to the left. 50,000 aliens here spread radicalism. Government official tells of wide agitation on Bolshevist lines. Backed by a rabid press. Subversive propaganda pushed among workers by foreign language papers. Of course, this is the New York Times. This is not some crazy right-wing screed. Thousands of aliens are in this country agitating for the confiscation of property and the overthrow of the American system of constitutional government is the lead of that story, okay. Let's move one more to the left. Seized documents link Gary leaders with Russian Reds. Gary leaders, that's referring to the leaders of a strike going on in Gary, Indiana, a suburb of Chicago. Army raids have uncovered much evidence that incriminates. Many arrests forecast. Some of the strike leaders said to have had credentials to Red conclaves, men will be deported, et cetera. Let's move one more story to the left. Labor threatens conference bolt. This, these are problems between management and labor, in which, the story points out, the national industrial conference is facing a crisis. Presentation of resolution declaring the right of wage earners to collective bargaining. In other words, another symptom of large scale labor unrest. And then, if you go over to this story, radical strikers shoot and stab working piermen. One with an I.W.W. card. That was the most radical of the unions trying to organize across all industries in the 19-teens. Strikers slow to return. Violence angers steamship men, who ask mayor for police protection. Again, that's just October 17th, 1919. You can just see how the issues of communism versus anti-communism are viscerally defining the news agenda and the politics of the United States. If we were to zoom over and take a good look at Spain, and Barcelona. 1919, a lot of hardship there, in the aftermath of the war. Spain had been neutral during the war, hadn't taken part. But the hardship affects Spanish industry, affects Barcelona. In 1919, all the workers, public and private in Barcelona, are being called out on a general strike to try to bring down the government, in order to get the release of some of their union leaders who had been imprisoned. The general strike in Barcelona is successful. The Spanish government is forced to give way. The strikers increasingly organizing into revolutionary militant groups, many of them in uniform. Alright, but in 1923, the anti-communist, the anti-revolutionary reaction. The Spanish government in effect becomes a military dictatorship, led by a man Primo de Rivera. Communism versus anti-communism in a different form, but you see the dynamic there too. Now let's spin the globe. Go half way around the world to China. Let's see how this kind of dynamic might be playing out there. Just if we were to zero in on the city of Shanghai in 1925, 1927. What happens in 1925? Anti-foreign unrest. Imperial policemen fire into a crowd. Chinese are killed. Chinese angry are boycotting Western goods all over China. It helps spur Chinese nationalist reaction. The new Republic of China, from a relatively small area of control in the South, begins marching northward. The different warlord armies in anarchic China are giving way before it, and are lining up with the new republic. And finally, by early 1927, this Republic of China, it reaches the Yangtze Valley. It establishes control in Shanghai itself, right here. What then happens in 1927? The Republic of China had been in alliance between various nationalist movements and the Chinese communists. The Chinese Communist Party, founded in Shanghai in 1921, had joined forces with other Chinese. One of the key military leaders of the Republic of China is this man, Chiang Kai-Shek. Charismatic, young military leader, trained in Moscow, deeply influenced by the Soviet communist example. But what happens when Chiang and his forces take control in Shanghai? In 1927, Chiang organizes the non-communist part of the republic into a civil war against the communist elements, determined to destroy them. There is a purge of the communists in the republic. Hundreds of people are killed and a civil war begins between the Nationalists and the Communists within China that will continue off and on for more than 20 years. Communism versus anti-communism, again becomes a defining fault line in the building of a new Chinese state. In the next presentation, we'll talk about the way some of the questioning of established ideas works itself out, in society at large. See you then.