HISTORY – Page 18 – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

WHO’S RESPONSIBLE

CEOs and their Boards need to compensate workers equitably.

Blog: awalkingdelight
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

“The Golden Passport: Harvard Business School, the Limits of Capitalism, and the Moral Failure of the MBA Elite”

By: Duff McDonald

Narrated by: George Newbern

Duff McDonald (Author, Canadian American, University of Pennsylvania graduate in Finance.)

“The Golden Passport” explains how Duff McDonald believes America got to today’s state of income inequality. McDonald argues that inequality is largely created by one education system, Harvard Business School, founded in 1908. According to a team of academics that publishes “Academic Influence”, HBS produces most of the Fortune 500 companies’ CEOs. With an estimated 70,000 HBS alumni, there is some merit to McDonald’s argument, but the fundamental cause is not education but human nature.

The extent of HBS’s impact on business practices certainly has influence on business leaders and teachers around the world. This is a similar argument made by William Deresiewicz in “Excellent Sheep” about America’s political leaders and administrators who were educated in exclusive ivy league universities.

Both authors suggest Ivy league universities are turning out management automatons that tend to think inside the same box, i.e., a mind-set that perpetuates income and power as the primary motivations of those who manage the business economy. Both authors argue Ivy league’ graduates permeate the management structure of the largest businesses and most powerful political offices in the world. The graduates of the Ivy league have common backgrounds and education with predictable answers for thought and action that have accelerated and reinforced income inequality in America.

Ayn Rand (1905-1982, Russian-born American writer and philosopher associated with capitalist’ self-interest. Though not educated at Harvard, Rand is considered a philosophical precursor to a belief that one should have liberty of thought and action, i.e., the libertarian view of society.)

Though HBS may be a promoter and reinforcer of income inequality, it is only an influencer of what makes humans acquisitive. The majority, if not all humans, are self-interested. Though self-interest varies among individuals, wealth is power–particularly in capitalist countries. The more money one has the more freedom and independence accompanies their lives.

McDonald’s point is that the HBS’s business model focuses on profitability as the only measure of business success. Because of that focus, business executives myopically view workers as a cost rather than source of company profitability. By reducing worker costs, executives are rewarded with uncapped compensation policies.

Business decisions are always made without knowledge of all information needed to direct an organization’s actions.

The case study method of education, pioneered by the Harvard Business School, focuses on profitability as the primary, if not singular, goal of a business enterprise. Efficiency becomes the mantra of business management which discounts, often ignores, workers’ compensation within corporations. By focusing on profitability, there is a point of diminishing return because of its impact on workers’ motivation. Pressing for higher productivity and reducing labor costs have diminishing rates of return that are not taken into account by CEOs interest in cost cutting. CEOs are incentivized to choose efficiency over worker welfare and productivity.

Robert McNamara (U.S. Secy. of Defense in the Kennedy administration.)

The real-world example McDonald uses to make his point is the war in Vietnam and the role of U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara. McNamara is a Harvard graduate that by any measure was a brilliant student. He outclassed most of his business class students in his ability to bolster arguments with recalled information that most would have to look-up to use as part of their policy decisions.

Henry Ford (1863-1947, American industrialist and business magnet who founded Ford Motor Company.)

McNamara accepted the Controller’s job at Ford Motor Company when Henry Ford’s son took over the company. His education at Harvard led him to focus on efficiency as a primary tool for improving the business performance of Ford. His drive for efficiency is based on reducing costs of labor and material while increasing automobile production.

McNamara developed what became known as the “Whiz Kids” of management that carried out his drive for efficiency to increase corporate profits.

By the measure of profitability, the “Whiz Kids” were extraordinarily successful. The drive for efficiency increased corporate officer salaries because of corporate profits. What is not taken into consideration is that it disproportionately depressed worker compensation increases. The long-term worker’ effects were not part of the “Whiz Kids” concern; in part because those effects are difficult to measure. There are many reasons why Ford’s profits fell after McNamara left the company, but McDonald implies an underlying cause is Ford’s penchant to address worker income as only an efficiency measure. Ford loss of profit rises in the early 1970s and reaches $2.3 billion in 1991.

McNamara became Ford’s General Manager in 1949 and served as President in 1960. He left Ford in 1961 to become President Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense.

McDonald writes that McNamara’s experience at Ford led him to believe statistical analysis is the only basis upon which success may be measured. That focus discounted human intensity of belief in the political cause of the Vietcong. American superiority on the battlefield could not defeat Vietcong political intensity. McDonald’s point is that a CEO who looks at employees as only cost centers rather than humans with a social underpinning will eventually cause business failure.

The difficulty is in measuring worker social impact on performance. A CEO is unable to make rational decisions about employee compensation without better understanding of workers’ needs. With CEO emphasis on corporate profits, the inclination is to either to ignore or minimize workers’ compensation when making business decisions. The end result is to widen the compensation gap between CEO pay and most employees of the company. McDonald argues the 1970s became the beginning of a pig feeding for corporate CEOs that has only accelerated with further influence by HBS’ education changes.

McDonald explains how business education at Harvard created a self-perpetuating engine for CEO salary acceleration with HBS Directors like Michael Porter who created the Five Forces Framework. The Five Forces Framework is a statistical analysis of the competitive environment of specific industries. By using that analysis, business mergers and divestiture decisions could be made based on profitability.

Michael Porter (Born in 1947–appointed Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at Harvard in 2000. Considered the strategy guru at Harvard that led to mergers and acquisitions around the world.)

The net effect certainly increased business profits but minimized employee enrichment while multiplying CEO compensation.

The Five Forces Framework led to a spate of mergers that continued to accelerate CEO compensation without commensurate salary increases or, in some cases, continued employment of workers.

Before beginning “The Golden Passport”, one might think the unconscionable incomes of CEOs of large corporations is a moral, not pecuniary, observation. However, CEO’s pay in relation to salaries of working men and women is not about morality. It is about money, worker employment, and the work contribution a motivated worker offers to business. There are many variables to the profitability of a corporation with a CEO’s contribution being management judgement, time, and skill. The argument based on morality ignores the truth that one person’s role as CEO cannot be justified when it is 300 to 400 times the annual salary of a worker (an estimate noted by Statistica, a global analytics software package).

How can any human being be worth 30 to 40 million dollars a year–even if he/she is expected to work every hour of a 24-hour day as a CEO? McDonald suggests HBS’ educated CEOs press for short term profitability because it offers outsize rewards for their performance. Workers are laid off when mergers occur and they never receive compensation increases equal to bonuses paid CEOs.

McDonald goes on to give many examples of the evolution of HSB curriculum for students. The emphasis remains based on statistical analysis of profitability because it is an easily measurable criterion. Corporate performance improvement, whether it is improved profit or an industry’s ability to stay in business, CEOs and their Boards need to compensate workers equitably.

POWER OF BELIEF

The power of belief in science or religion both leads and misleads humanity. Humans may not forgive but they often forget.

Blog: awalkingdelight
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Hiding Place

By: Corrie ten Boom, Elizabeth Sherrill, John Sherrill

Narrated by: Wanda McCaddon

Corrie ten Boom (Dutch watchmaker, Christian writer and public speaker.)

This is the life story of Corrie ten Boom and her experience in WWII. It is an autobiography written with the help of the Sherrills who have written or co-authored over 30 books translated into more than 40 languages. Though Ms. ten Boom and the Sherrills have passed, “The Hiding Place” is a paean to religious belief that has sustained civilization.

The belief eulogized in “The Hiding Place” is Christian, but it could be any faith. Whether Islamism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Judaism, Taoism, Confucianism, Caodaism, humanism, naturalism, “…ism” is belief in something greater than oneself.

Corrie ten Boom’s biography illustrates the opposing forces of a human need for belief in something greater than oneself. As noted by other authors, the civilizations that exist today would never have grown without belief in an “…ism” greater than the individual, family, or tribe. Corrie ten Boom is a believer in the Christian Bible and its Word. That belief drew her and her family to protect Jews from the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands.

The rise of Nazism in Germany was a political ideology, secular in its origin, and loosely based on belief in science.

Science is a systematic method of gaining knowledge about nature, its causes and consequence. Like every belief system, science is based on human cognition which can lead or mislead humanity. Neither science nor religion have omniscient or omnipresent insight to the nature of the universe because of the human mind’s limitations and interpretations of facts and events. Religion, like science, can lead and mislead civilization because of human limitation and interpretation.

Thankfully, Corrie ten Boom’s family’s belief in the Bible led them to aid Jews when they were persecuted by the false science of German Naziism.

The relevance of “The Hiding Place” resonates today in the conflict between Palestinians and Jews in Israel and Palestine. One can see a conflict between religion and science in the tragedy that is unfolding in Gaza. Both Hamas and the Jews use their religious beliefs and the science of war to kill each other. As in all war, there is no winner. The death of 6,000,000 Jews in WWII and the slaughter of Jews at the festival in Israel are horrid and unforgivable, but can they or should they be used as justification for the horror of what is happening in Gaza?

Corrie ten Boom’s story neither forgives nor forgets the German atrocities of WWII.

She follows her religious belief to do what she could to save her Catholic family and Netherland’s Jews from Nazi’s societal and science ignorance. What forgiveness there is in Corrie ten Boom’s book is only in the acceptance of the Word in her Bible. The power of belief in science or religion both leads and misleads humanity. Humans may not forgive but they often forget.

STONE THROWER

In the 21st century, actions and policies of one nation are not local. Like a ripple in water, the world can be changed by one stone thrower.

Blog: awalkingdelight
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World

By: Adam Tooze

Narrated by: Simon Vance, Adam Tooze

Adam Tooze (British Author, Historian, professor at Columbia University, Director of the European Institute.)

“Crashed” is a book about the 2008 financial crash. Though it is old news, Adam Tooze offers historical perspective and a cautionary tale about America, the E.U., China, India, Russia, Spain, and other nations of the world. Interconnectedness is greater now than any time in history. The surprising realization in Tooze’s analysis of the financial crash is that America caught a fiscal infection like Covid19, and it spread across the world.

To increase return on investment in 2008, American security firms created and sold a financial product with a blend of good and poorly secured mortgages.

These securities were purchased and re-sold among big banks, wealthy investors, and investment houses. The lax oversight of the quality of the combined mortgages led to a cascade of bank and investment house failures that nearly collapsed the world financial system.

Though the western world was more directly affected by purchases of these mortgage packages, countries like China, Russia, South Korea, Ireland, Spain, and Greece were severely, if not equally, impacted.

Nations’ financial crises were not solely because of purchases of these mortgage packages but because of world economic interconnectedness. Nations of the world, as users of energy and product purchases, quit buying. At the same time, Tooze notes the American dollar was hoarded by some countries for protection from devaluation of local currencies. With America’s financial crises, the dollar became a source of devaluation rather than protection.

China escaped most of the 2008 financial crises because of its committed investment in national growth.

China chose to invest in domestic infrastructure projects like dams, high speed rail, and bridges. China chose to increase product production (at lower labor costs) for the worldwide market. In contrast, Russia reinforced kleptocracy, before, during, and after the 2008 crisis, by rewarding Russian oligarchs who became a wealthy and powerful cadre of supporters of the government. With favored treatment of the oligarchs, Vladimir Putin recognized he had the power to act as he wished whether it was in the best interest of Russian citizens or not. (This is similar to the repressive reign of Kim Jon-un who spreads the wealth of his nation on a relatively small cadre of North Korean protectors while many citizens live in poverty.)

Ben Bernanke (American economist, 14th chairman of the Federal Reserve.)

In America, Tooze deconstructed the complicated negotiation process between banking industry independence and federal government oversite by the Obama administration. The range of disagreement is from nationalization of the banking industry to a direct bailout of overextended banks. Though the government bluntly accused banking executives of overpaying themselves for the mistakes they made, Obama and Geitner recognized the importance of industry independence in making complicated decisions to get America out of its financial ditch. The decision is made to bailout the banks. The American government loaned enough money to banks and select companies to maintain American lenders’ and industries’ liquidity.

Timothy Geithner (Former central banker, 75th U.S Secretary of the Treasury under President Obama.)

The controversial decision made by the government to support banking and industry liquidity resulted in many American citizens loss of their homes; not to mention their jobs, because of business and industry cutbacks. The tranches of money to support lenders and businesses did nothing to help the poor who purchased houses on variable rate mortgages to qualify for a loan. Mortgage lenders received large bonuses for increased business but were never penalized for the harm they did to the public. When rates on their loans escalated, lower income buyers could no longer pay their mortgages. The choices of Obama’s administration reinforced the perception that those with enough money to cope with the economic downturn were favored over the poor because they had enough income to either pay the escalated mortgage payments or refinance their mortgages.

The financial rescue of Greece follows a similar path between 2008 and 2018. Greece is eventually bailed out but the citizens most hurt by the restructured financing are the poor.

In order to stabilize the economy, 320 billion euros were lent to Greece by the European Union and the IMF. As of 2019, only 41.6 billion had been paid back to reduce that debt. The E.U. and IMF imposed austerity measures that principally hurt the poor by reducing retirement pensions and employment opportunities. Greece fell into a recession that lasted until 2017. The poor became poorer because of pension reductions and loss of jobs. (Full repayment of the 320-billion-dollar loan is not expected until 2060.)

Tooze tells a similar story about Spain. The 2008 crises caused a 3.6% reduction in GDP in 2009. Spain’s response was similar to Greece’s in that the poor were more likely to have been hurt than the rich because of implemented austerity measures that reduced public spending, and job creation that impoverished a wide swarth of society.

The final chapters of Tooze’s history severely criticizes the rise of Trump and his extremist rhetoric about helping the working poor when in fact he is only interested in himself, his power, and his wealth. Tooze implies Trump uses American belief in free speech, and the power of public office to distort the truth of immigration, poverty, and equality to mislead the public. Historically, this is not a new American phenomenon but in this technological age, the damage political leaders can inflict on the public is multiplied.

In explaining the impact of the 2008 financial crises, Tooze shows how one nation’s actions and policies can roil the world. In the 21st century, actions and policies of one nation are not local. Like a ripple in water, the world can be changed by one stone thrower.

SOCIETIES’ EVOLUTION

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The WEIRDest People in the World (How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous)

By: Joseph Henrich

Narrated by: Korey Jackson

Joseph Henrich (American author, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard, former professor of psychology and economics at the University of British Columbia.)

Joseph Henrich writes an explosive book focusing on social evolution. The explosion is in the first half of the book. The remainder has a few firecrackers but no explosions. His erudite research infers much of the world will either evolve in a western world way or degrade into an economically and politically poorer and disruptive society that distrusts the western world and foments military and political opposition. If Henrich’s analysis carries some truth, one hopes the western world will persist within a more secular religious belief system that will preserve the earth’s environment.

Henrich’s argument is that the rise of religion and the concept of gods and God changed the world from tribalist, kinship’ enclaves to nation-state societies. In the early days of human habitation, Henrich’s research suggests tribes of people developed society based on kinship. However, societies evolution into larger communities is burdened by the limitations of kinship. Henrich suggests history shows political and economic relationships fall apart when kinship is the sole cohesive force of society. Both kinship and religion remain important, but religion became the more significant and cohesive part of society. Kinship’s weakness is that it limits the size of community. The growth of religion incorporated kinship to provide greater social cohesion for larger political and economic systems. Rather than kinship as the only cohesive force of society, people began to believe in something more than familial relationships. With the creation of religion, the idea of a supreme being and a moral center for “the-many-rather-than-the-one” offers a concept of societal cohesion beyond kinship.

The big five religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism became a cohesive force for nation-state development. (Of course, there are more religions than these five, but they account for 78% of the world’s population.) Religious belief provides a societal force that expands the concept of tribal communities to nation-state and, to a degree, eastern and western hemispheric cohesiveness.

However, it seems the world (particularly the western hemisphere) is becoming more secular.

One may argue advances in science erode religious beliefs. However, Henrich infers that erosion became a landslide in the western world with Martin Luther’s posting of the 95 Thesis on the Castle Church on October 31, 1517. Luther’s posting marks the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Henrich argues the power of religion evolves with the church’s holiness, social objectivity, and political fairness being challenged by the public. Luther exposes the perfidy of the church for selling indulgences for parishioners to erase their sins to pave their way to heaven.

Henrich notes how the general public’s literacy increases after Martin Luther’s 1517 posting on the Wittenberg church.

Whether the motivation is the posting, innate human curiosity, or the invention of the Guttenberg press (1440), history shows the public began to learn how to read and write. The public wishes to understand the world as it is, rather than how leaders of the church report their interpretation of God and the Bible.

Henrich goes on to reveal many sociological studies that show the measure of time by watches, and the rise of competition increase productivity of society.

The consequence of these two sociological conclusions benefited the western hemisphere more than the eastern hemisphere. One concludes that may be related to the way religion is viewed in the west versus the east, with the caveat that such a generalization ignores the reality that many eastern hemisphere countries have predated, if not exceeded, the economic and social growth of the west.

It seems those eastern hemisphere countries that have emphasized religion over secular human interests have lagged behind western economic and social growth.

However, it seems those eastern hemisphere countries that have emphasized religion over secular human interests have lagged behind western economic and social growth. Henrich’s sociological studies imply a balance is needed between religious and secular belief for economic and social growth to achieve peace among nations. It seems nations of the world need to reconcile belief in religion with the social needs of society for earth to survive as the home of humanity.

Henrich ends his sociological analysis with two fundamental requirements for civilizations’ continued advancement. Contrary to an oft assumed cause being the lone genius that invents something new or discovers some unknown truth of science, Henrich suggests interconnectedness and diversity are the foundation of civilizations’ advance.

If Henrich’s theory of society is correct, humans need to quit killing each other and embrace diversity with the tools of technological communication and innovation that will come from respect for different cultures. From that foundation, innovation will change the world and earth will have a chance to become a place of peace and prosperity.

DIAGNOSIS

Doctor Benaroch’s fundamental point in writing this speculative history is to emphasize the importance of a patient’s explanation of their symptoms in coming to a conclusion about a diagnosis.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Medical Mysteries Across History

By: Roy Benaroch MD

Narrated by: Roy Benaroch

Roy Benaroch MD (Author, general pediatrician practitioner at Emory University near Atlanta, Georgia.

From kings to jazz singers, Roy Benaroch reviews the diagnosis of ten historical figures with a medical opinion about their cause of death. Based on written evidence of their physical complaints, Benaroch offers a medical opinion about what today’s knowledge of medicine would have revealed about their lives and causes of death.

Benaroch presents his analysis with an element of mystery by not revealing the more familiar names of the dying person until later in each chapter.

The historical figures he chooses are famous, so their medical complaints are recorded in ancient or more modern publications. With written documentation of their complaints, Benaroch gives his opinion on modern-day diagnosis with cursory notes about their accomplishments. In his review of written reports of their medical complaints, he surmises a medical diagnosis and their probable cause of death.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (1882-1945, DIED AGE 63 )

This interesting and brief journey through history reflects on the medical complaints of Franklin Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Marie Curie, Alexander the Great, Billie Holiday, and King Henry VIII, among four others not noted here. Roosevelt’s polio, Keller’s deafness and blindness, Marie Curie’s aplastic anemia, Billie Holiday’s addiction, and the causes of death for Alexander the Great and King Henry are interesting examples of Beneroch’s diagnosis of their diseases, its symptoms, and how their medical complaints should or could be treated today.

Though polio had been around for thousands of years, it is not identified as a virus until 1909. It usually attacks children under age 5 but can be acquired from contaminated water at any age.

Roosevelt first shows symptom of paralysis when he reaches the age of 39 in 1921. His symptoms were fever, muscle weakness, facial numbness, bowel and bladder dysfunction. Benaroch notes Roosevelt first notes symptoms after diving into water off his family’s yacht. Dr. Robert Lovett, with consultation from William Keen (a former doctor for Presidents and America’s first brain surgeon) came up with the correct diagnosis.

A practical nurse named Anne Sulivan is hired by Keller’s family because of her experience with deaf children.

Helen Keller, aka “bronco kid” because of her unruly behavior as a child, contracted an illness at age of 19 months. She exhibited a high fever and lost consciousness. She survives her symptoms but is unable to hear or see after her return to consciousness. Benaroch explains the high fever likely induced damage to Keller’s optic nerve and auditory processing system without fatally impairing her remaining nervous system. Sullivan becomes Keller’s teacher and companion who helps Keller learn how to read, write, and speak despite her lost sight and hearing. Keller becomes the first deafblind person to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree. She became a global advocate for the blind from 1924 to 1968 when she died.

Marie Curie is diagnosed with aplastic anemia, a disease that destroys bone marrow ability to create red blood cells.

Marie Curie and her husband were chemists working with radioactive material before its harmful effects were known. Her husband dies in a street accident in 1906 so is not known to have been affected by their joint experiments with radium and polonium. Later, Marie Curie works with x-ray machines during WWI. To compound her risk from exposure, she is known to have carried test tubes of radium around in her lab coat. Benaroch notes Curie dies at age 66 in 1934 which is remarkable considering her exposure to radon and other radioactive materials. Benaroch explains her symptoms are fatigue, shortness of breath, rapid heartbeat, bruising, headache, and fever. However, years after her death, Curie’s body is not found to have excessive levels of radiation in her remains. The cause of death remains obscure according to another book that notes Curie as an exemplar of women in science.

Benaroch notes drugs are miracles of pain reduction. When one becomes addicted to drugs to relieve one’s pain, humans need treatment, not incarceration.

Benaroch tells the story of Billie Holiday’s tragic life and death. As a physician, he notes a condition of human abuse that ranges from a low of 1 to a high of 10. His opinion is that Holliday nears 8 if not 10 on that scale. She was raped twice as a teenager, married three times to husbands that abused and took advantage of her fame and income from singing. She was arrested several times for drug possession and with a drug conviction in 1947, her cabaret license is revoked. Though she made a lot of money as a blues singer, Benaroch explains she died from cirrhosis of the liver at the age of 44 with $750 strapped to her leg. Benaroch notes addiction is a disease that continues to be misunderstood by the public and law enforcement. Benaroch explains America lost a national treasure when Billie Holiday died. He implies being black in America is hard but being addicted and black in America is a death sentence.

Benaroch suggests Alexander the Great drank to excess by choice, not because of addiction to alcohol.

Alexander the Great is characterized by Benaroch as a binge drinker, not an alcoholic. On Alexander’s last overindulgence, he falls unconscious, appears to quit breathing, and dies. The odd recording of his condition after death is that the body lays quiescent for several days without putrefaction. The embalmers refuse to treat his body because he appears to be something other than dead. Benaroch is unsure of whether this is a myth or accurate report of Alexander’s dead body. After considering what written record exists, Benaroch suggests Alexander probably died from blood poisoning from a former wound that never healed. Alexander appears alert up until his breathing and heartbeat stops. Benaroch suggests the slow advance of organ shutdown from blood poisoning allows Alexander to react to those who draw his attention. Benaroch infers the lack of putrefaction is likely a myth because blood poisoning could slow Alexander’s breathing and his stillness and inactivity reduce his heartbeat to the point that his body remained nourished enough to delay his actual death.

Benaroch notes jousting events in which the King of England’s head is hit with a lance. In a 1524 Henry is nearly killed in a match.

Benaroch’s diagnosis of King Henry is one of the more interesting diagnoses of his short book. Benaroch suggests Henry, in his early years as ruler of England, is an affable, intelligent, and effective monarch. However, Benaroch suggests Henry’s athletic life resulted in head injuries that changed his personality and the direction of his reign to one of erratic rule, unnecessary divorces, marriages, and behavior unbecoming a King. He is hit in the face by splinters from one jousing encounter that could have killed him. He continues to participate in jousting tournaments.

In 1533, Henry formally marries Anne Boleyn after his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Henry marries four more times between 1533 and 1543. Benaroch suggests Henry’s behavior changes as he got older. In Beraroch’s opinion, he becomes more of an erratic tyrant than pragmatic ruler because of repeated head injuries. Jousting, like football, is a physical hard-hitting sport that has affected many of history’s athletes.

Doctor Benaroch’s fundamental point in writing this speculative history is to emphasize the importance of a patient’s explanation of their symptoms in coming to a conclusion about a diagnosis. Physical examination is important but listening to a patient’s physical and mental explanations of their condition are the best evidence for determining a correct diagnosis. This is the belief of other physician’s books that have been reviewed in this blog. There are many reasons why doctors may misdiagnose a patient’s condition. Some are too busy to take the time necessary to properly understand a patient’s comments. Doctors have various levels of experience and may not know how to interpret what a patient is saying. That does not change the point of Benaroch’s observations. It is essential for a good diagnosis to be based on the details of the patient’s history.

ENGLAND’S DEMOCRACY

Smith shows how Democracy struggles with a capitalist system that is meant to provide economic opportunity for all without victimizing those who cannot cope with the nature of human competition. England, like America, has not found a solution.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

English History Made Brief, Irreverent, and Pleasurable

By: Lacy Baldwin Smith

Narrated by: Peter Noble

Lacey Baldwin Smith (American Author, Former Princeton, MIT, and Northwestern University Professor, specializing in 16th-century England, died in 2013 @ age 90.)

Smith’s book lives up to its title, “English History Made Brief”. His book is a brief (considering the centuries he covers), irreverent, and entertaining opinion of England’s leaders from this island nation’s beginning through the reign of Elizabeth II. It seems prudent to recognize this history is an opinion because it is written by an American. Not that a British writer could have written a more accurate book, but that history is always colored by prejudices, fact selectivity, and source documentation of leaders’ actions and beliefs.

England began as a series of 7 main Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the 5th and 6th centuries. Before that, the island was ruled by the Roman Empire. However, the Romans were actually late comers to England. Human remains date back over 40,000 years. During the Iron Age, around 600 to 1,200 B.C., the Celts self-identified as Britons. The Celts were farmers who lived in Europe from 1200 B.C. to around 43 A.D.

Somewhere in the 9th century, the Vikings invaded England and ruled through the 11th century with the exception of one Anglo-Saxon ruler named Alfred the Great who won the Battle of Edington in 878 which divided England between Anglo-Saxon and Viking territories.

Alfred is known for bringing Christianity to the island, along with administrative and military reforms. The Vikings continued to hold territory, but the beginning of the end is in 952 when the Viking, Erik Bloodaxe, is expelled and killed. Some Viking ancestors are said to have settled in eastern Britain and Ireland.

The Anglo-Saxons are a Germanic people that have a long history in English leadership. Alfred the Great and his successors, like Cnut the Great, dominated England until the Norman Conquest in 1066. Interestingly, the leader of the Norman Conquest, a French speaking culture that settled in Normandy, were descendants of the Vikings. In that sense, the Vikings return to control of England in the Norman Conquest.

The Norman Conquest is led by William the Conqueror who secured England by building castles and moats throughout the countryside. The Tower of London is constructed by William.

The first king of England that is of consequence after the Norman conquest is actually born an Englishman (1239-1307, reign from 1272-1307). He is Edward I.

Edward I of England is born in London, just as his father. However, his mother was French and was considered by some to be the woman behind the throne of Edward I’s father, an ineffectual English King. She was known for her beauty and intelligence while playing an active role in English politics. Edward I solidifies the authority of Parliament in England while conducting a brutal campaign against Scotland. Edward I, an unusually tall King, attained the sobriquet “Hammer of the Scots” in his rule. Edward I’s grandson becomes King Edward III who achieves several victories against France in the Hundred Years’ War.

In the 15th century, France and England vie for greater control of Europe. Henry V (reign 1413-1422) of England leads the campaign against France. Born in Wales, Henry V is also a castle and moat builder like William the Conqueror. Henry is known for his military campaigns in Wales and Scotland and for the creation of England’s legal reforms.

King Henry VIII (reign 1509-1547) breaks with the Roman Catholic church in 1534 and confiscates church property throughout England which makes the crown rich. Henry VIII is the most well-known of England’s kings because of his many marriages, the machinations of his divorces, and his sire of Queen Elizabeth I.

The studied countenance of Elizabeth I (reign 1558-1603) , Henry VIII’s daughter by Anne Boleyn, reigns with the skill of her father.

Though much of the wealth of the country is gone, Elizabeth uses her intelligence and political skill to endear herself to the people. Smith characterizes her as a great actress and intelligent ruler who learns her lines before speaking to the public. The Spanish Armada, a much larger military force, is defeated by her military leaders, Lord Charles Howard and Sir Francis Drake in 1588. Though there were elements of luck (like weather), the planning, ship design, and skill of the English military leaders defeat a much larger force that raises the national pride of England and endears Elizabeth to her people.

Though Queen Victoria has a long reign, (1837-1901), the greatest contribution she makes to England, in Smith’s opinion, is the wealth she leaves remaining monarchs.

Of course, Queen Elizabeth II, as the daughter of King George the VI and Queen Elizabeth, becomes Queen of England in 1952, with her coronation in 1953. Little is commented on by the author except to suggest that the monarchy became rather boring, except for the marriage of Diana to Prince Charles and its subsequent notoriety.

Technological change, the industrial revolution, and England’s colonization made it the richest leader of the western world. England becomes a parliamentary democracy rather than monarchy, while preserving the traditions of monarchy.

In general, Smith notes today’s English political leaders enact public policies that both aid and harm democratic capitalism, a struggle that is evident in all western democracies.

On the one hand, Smith acknowledges the great wealth and power England achieved with leaders who promoted capitalism. On the other, Smith notes the trials of workers that are too young to be working and identifies a working poor that cannot afford to live without hunger and deprivation. Education is underfunded and public health care is overburdened. England’s leadership position falls in the world. There is a lesson here for everyone who believes in democratic ideals but struggles with capitalism and its penchant for beggaring the poor and creating inequality among its people.

NEWSPAPERS’ FUTURE

Conscious management of deleterious and harmful content by news media is the hope of humanity’s future. That is the message one may find in Lagorio-Chafkin’s history of Reddit.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

We Are the Nerds (The Birth and Tumultuous Life of Reddit, the Internet’s Culture Laboratory)

By: Christine Lagorio-Chafkin

Narrated by: Chloe Cannon

Christine Lagorio-Chafkin (Author, reporter, senior writer for “Inc” magazine.)

Christine Lagorio-Chafkin offers a detailed history of the internet forum known as Reddit. Founded by Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian, with coding help from Aaron Swartz in 2005, Reddit has grown from an idea to a user-based internet newspaper estimated at 57 million daily readers and users as of December 2022. Huffman and Ohanian were roommates and students at the University of Virginia. These two founders are helped by Aaron Swartz, a nerd coding extraordinaire, with coding expertise. These are early days of a yet to be named web site.

With the help of start-up idea’ consultant Paul Graham, these three young men parlayed their idea into an asset that is purchased in 2006 by Conde-Nast to make the founders millionaires in their early 20s.

In 2018, Advance Publications, the parent company of Conde-Nast, values Reddit at $6 billion. Advance raises $250 million in funding in 2021. From Conde-Nast’s original purchase price of $10 million, one gains some idea of Reddit’s value despite having not made a profit since its inception. Chafkin suggests they are almost there in her book.

Lagorio-Chafkin’ story of these three young men offers insight to a generation that is reminiscent but different from the movers and shakers of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution might be broken into two periods. The first began in the 17th century when Samuel Slater introduces British industrialization into the textile industry of America. The second occurs after the American Civil War with machine inventions like Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, and du Pont’s improvements in chemistry and gunpowder needed for the War of 1812.

Just as the industrial revolution’s pioneers, the tech revolution pioneers are obsessed with their work.

Their motivations were similar, ranging from fascination with their work to interest in being financially successful. The difference is the work of the industrialist focuses on material productivity while the technologist focuses on idea productivity. Both benefit society but the industrialist looks at material results while the technologist focuses on ideas, and knowledge that can be put to productive use. Both benefit society but from different starting points. The industrial economy is weighted heavily toward material productivity while the tech economy is more heavily weighted toward social and service influence.

Reddit went through several generations of CEOs. Each made changes to the direction of the company. Yishan Wong, a former Facebook employee, began Reddit’s transition from scandal sheet to newsworthiness. His success is limited because of Reddit’s drive for profitability and his manufactured controversy over relocation of its headquarters. Since inception, Reddit has gone through 5 CEOs.

Steve Huffman (2005-2009, 2015-present) (born 1983) 1986 for Swartz and 1983 for Ohanian
Ellen Pao (2014-2015)
Yishan Wong (2012-2014)
Erik Martin (2010-2014)
Jay Adelson (2005-2009)

Ellen Pao’s tenure as CEO of Reddit is brief but consequential. Pao implemented several changes to the site’s policies, including banning revenge porn and unauthorized nude photos. Pao’s resignation came after a week of intense criticism and harassment from some members of the Reddit community.

Ellen Pao resigned from her position as CEO of Reddit in July 2015. Her leadership was met with controversy and criticism, and she faced backlash from some members of the Reddit community over her policies and decisions. Some users felt her changes were too restrictive and infringed on their freedom of speech. Yes, Ellen Pao filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Kleiner Perkins, in 2012. The case went to trial in 2015 and Pao lost the suit. After leaving Kleiner Perkins, Pao became the CEO of Reddit in 2014, but resigned her position in July 2015.

The principals of Reddit are Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian who begin as friends and become estranged as the company grows. In time, they reconcile with Huffman becoming CEO of the company.

Both contribute to the success of Reddit, but Huffman becomes the guiding light for its future as a publicly designed profit-making internet newspaper. Ohanian becomes particularly famous for the woman whom he marries.

Serena Williams' Wedding In Beautiful Pictures; Heads To Honeymoon With Husband — Serena Williams and Alexis Ohanian marry in November 2017

The tragic story of Aaron Swartz’s important contribution in the early days of Reddit explains an underlying purpose of a public paper. Swartz is vilified by the American government for downloading private information to the public without corporate or government authorization.

Aaron Schwartz commits suicide. Chafkin notes Swartz’e father argues his son believed in a “right-of-the-public” to know everything there is to know about society. To Swartz’s father, Aaron did not commit suicide but was murdered by the American government as a result of its relentless prosecution.

Fundamentally, “We Are the Nerds” is about an internet generation concerned with greater social self-realization, if not comity. Reddit is a social news aggregation and rating website that offers a forum to the public that broadcasts user’ beliefs and understanding of the 21st century world. It is not about industrial productivity but about people’s social perceptions and beliefs ranging from facts to fiction about the material world.

The purpose of Reddit is not to produce “all the news that’s fit to print” but to reveal all the news that reflects the beliefs of a flawed society.

Reddit, while counseling moderation, allows extreme views of a diverse and self-interested user base. As a public forum, it interviewed the President of the United States (Barrack Obama). On the other hand, Reddit provided a forum for trolls like Michael Brutsch, who broadcasted images of scantily clad underage girls, porn, gore, misogyny, incest, and other societal images of human depravity. There is little social comity in that scenario, but it is a part of human society. Troll behavior is the bane of click-bate oriented internet platforms. Reddit, since the return of Huffman, focuses on eliminating hate-speech and dysfunctional societal contributors to its public forum. Chafkin notes Reddit’s exposure of Russian interference in the election of Donald Trump. It offers evidence of Reddit’s effort to clean-up misleading information and fake news that is the bread and butter of click-bate’ media sites.

To use the oft quoted Star War’s meme–Reddit is trying to follow a “this is the way” principle to give legitimacy to News’ purveyors of the future.

Reddit, like past and present newspaper and television stations are subject to their owner’s conservative, liberal, or independent biases. Owners of media sites like The New York Times, Fox News, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Facebook, Google search, Microsoft search, X, and Amazon have their biases. Conscious management of deleterious and harmful content by news media is the hope of humanity’s future. That is the message one may find in Lagorio-Chafkin’s history of Reddit.

GREEK TRAGEDY

Detroit manages to restructure their debt with the help of its citizens. Greece is caught in the grips of E.U.’ and IMF’ bureaucracy that only increases its debt.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Adults in the Room (My Battle with the European and American Deep Establishment)

By: Yanis Varoufakis

Narrated by: Leighton Pugh

Yanis Varoufakis (Author, Greek economist and politician, Minister of Finance of Greece for 7 months in 2015, launched Diem25, the “Democracy in Europe Movement 2025” in February 2016.)

Yanis Varoufakis gives listeners a glimpse of decisions made when a national government is compelled to declare a national debt crisis. To fairly understand “Adults in the Room”, one will struggle with Varoufakis long story. His story is about restructuring rather than refinancing the debt owed the E.U. and IMF for a national debt crisis. Restructuring debt changes terms of repayment based on an original debt, while refinancing increases the debtor’s burden.

It is helpful to have listened to a book about Detroit’s bankruptcy. Detroit’s harrowing experience gives some idea of how difficult it is for a government entity to repay creditors for profligate government economic management. Detroit manages to restructure their debt with the help of its citizens. Greece is caught in the grips of E.U.’ and IMF’ bureaucracy that only increases its debt.

Varoufakis’ argument for understanding the plight of society’s poor is highly relevant in this era of democracies’ homelessness and economic inequality.

Varoufakis acknowledges socialist beliefs while inferring a negative opinion about capitalism. Varoufakis professes strong belief in democracy with a pronounced lean toward socialism, i.e., a belief similar to America’s Bernie Sanders who is mentioned in “Adults in the Room”.

Varoufakis notes that Greek, like American society, is unequal with rich and poor being disproportionately benefited by intended and unintended government and economic policy.

Greek government’s effort to compensate for inequality seems couched in an economic system meant to equalize citizen inequity with a pension system designed to compensate the poor for economic inequality. A poorly managed national economy and a weakly enforced tax collection system compounds Greek government failure to live within its means.

When Greece declares a sovereign debt crisis, the European Union and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) provide a credit lifeline of $9.5 billion to avoid a default on a previous bailout.

This so-called lifeline is contrary to what is requested by Varoufakis who becomes the Minister of Finance for Greece. The benefit of restructuring the debt provides liquidity to the Greek banking system without theoretically damaging credit worthiness of either the E.U. or IMF. On its face, it seems a win-win solution for Greece’s debtors and Greece’s citizens. However, the E.U. sees it as a dangerous alternative that fails to address the root causes of Greece’s profligate behavior. The E.U. demands control of all economic expenditures of the Greek government in return for a bail-out of past debt with a larger tranche of new debt. Financial control of Greece’s use of the new funds is to be exercised by a triumvirate representing the debt holders.

Varoufakis asks that Greece’s original bailout debt be restructured as a long-term bond with reduced payments over a long period of time, with payment size largely determined by Greece’s liquidity in a recovering economy.

In contrast, the demands of the E.U. and IMF are that salaries and pensions be cut, government employees’ pensions frozen, and retirement age raised. Those measures disproportionately hit the poor, destroy jobs, do nothing to improve tax receipts, and make it more difficult for Greece to pay its debt; not to mention the strict control of all expenditures by an external triumvirate of debt holders.

With these draconian rules, Varoufakis notes unemployment improves. However, the economy is estimated to be 25% smaller; not to mention the impact of the external triumvirates’ control reduces living standards, pensions, and salaries of the working poor.

The point of Varoufakis’ story is that the E.U. and I.M.F.’s mandated terms victimizes the most vulnerable Greek citizens trying to make a living.

Varoufakis resigns after 7 months in office after unsuccessfully fighting the onerous and inequitable demands of the E.U. and IMF. In some listener’s opinion, some may suggest Varoufakis abandons the poor, but his story suggests the decision of the controlling triumvirate of the E.U. and IMF rendered his continued role as Minister of Finance a virtual joke. Varoufakis is unable to change the E.U. and IMF board’s inflexible rules. Greece’s Minister of Finance cannot achieve a delay in their demand for restructuring the Greek’s debt to correct a poorly managed tax system and weak economy that victimizes the most vulnerable citizens of Greece.

For listeners of “Adults in the Room”, one wonders where wealthy Greek citizens were when Varoufakis tries to pull Greece out of its financial ditch.

Unlike the book about Detroit’s bankruptcy, there seems no appeal to rich citizens of Greece and a method for using Greece’s historical art and artifacts to collateralize a more equitable bail out for its people. Where were the Greeks who could afford to pay their taxes? Where were the art and antiquity foundations that could have aided in the negotiations with the E.U. and the I.M.F.? The historic art and monuments of Greece are an international treasure, particularly for western culture.

In retrospect, Varoufakis’s idea of restructuring the debt seems brilliant but there seems no time is allowed for Varoufakis to organize a response that could change the mindset of the members of the E.U. and IMF decision makers. As a “Monday morning quarterback”, Varoufakis’s idea would have carried more weight if he had gathered support from wealthy Greek merchants and art foundation entities that could have created a repayment sweetener to seal his loan restructuring idea. However, it appears there was not enough time for Varoufakis to gather enough support to make a case for debt restructuring. The triumvirate controlling the purse strings of the bailout would not wait.

Listeners owe a debt to writers like Varoufakis who are willing to tell their stories, whether right or wrong. In fairness to Varoufakis, it is easy to retrospectively review his actions to save the Greek economy.

At best, one concludes, restructuring Greece’s debt was a great idea that could have achieved a decent compromise for its lenders. On the other hand, one wonders what the leaders of Greece were doing when the repayment crises first began to show itself.

There were undoubtedly some powerful and rich Greek leaders who could have come to the aid of their country in this 21st century “time of need”. One is reminded of the heroic defense of Greek citizens in Crete when Nazis invaded their strategically located island. Where were the descendants of the many great Greek heroes of antiquity?

TOO CLEVER BY HALF

“Golden Hill” is an interesting commentary on the tenor of an historic time, and it reveals some founding principles that trouble America to this day.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Golden Hill (A Novel of Old New York)

By: Francis Spufford

Narrated by: Sarah Borges

Francis Spufford (Author, received the 2017 Desmond Elliot Prize and Costa Book Award for “Golden Hill”, the author’s first novel.)

Francis Spufford captures a listener’s interest in “Golden Hill” with the idea of an Englishman sailing from London to New York City in 1746. New York City has a population of maybe 20,000, while London is a city of 630,000 to 740,000. What would a young Englishman with a 1,000-pound Bill-of-Exchange want in traveling from London to New York city? In today’s dollars 1,000 pounds would be over $127,000. The hero’s reason for leaving London for New York is not given until the end of Spufford’s story.

This is New York city in the 18th century. One could walk around the city in a day with its circumference less than a square mile.

This is a fascinating beginning to a story that gets bogged down by too many incidents that are mystifying until the last chapters of the book. The incidents are relevant to what it must have been like in 1746 but some listeners will become impatient for answers that could have been explained earlier.

New York City in 1746 is a mecca for protestants from many parts of the world. Spufford implies many New Yorkers are Dutch, a prominent ethnic group in wealthy New York.

Spufford’s hero is found to have a deep understanding of the theatre and its impact on an audience if an actor’s parts are well played. He attends a bad play that has an actress who, in spite of her poor lines, shows talent he recognizes. His appreciation of her acting leads to an unforeseen tragedy. This becomes a clue to the traveler’s perception of others and how unintended consequences impact one’s life. He seems to walk through life as though the City of New York is his stage. He plays his part, but his acting chops end with a mixed review.

Spufford’s hero appears to be accepted by the influential citizens of the city. At least, until it appears the Bill-of-Exhange is not going to be honored. The hero is thrown into debtors’ prison.

Debtors’ prison is an interesting place to write about. Spufford reflects on its barbarity in a confrontation with a fellow prisoner. The Bill of Exchange is eventually honored, and the hero is released. The next chapters address the repatriation of the hero to the Poo Bahs of the town and a woman of interest becomes more enamored with the traveler. The profile of the woman is somewhat unbelievable because of her implied business influence in a time when women have even less power than today.

The hero attends a party set up by leading members of the city that is, in part, to apologize for his mistreatment and to carry out whatever his mission is in the city. An interesting historical point of the apology is that America is primarily a barter system of exchange. Even though the traveler’s security is in English pound sterling, any negotiation for exchange is in goods, not cash. This is fine for the traveler’s purpose, but it reflects a point in American history that is often forgotten. There is no full faith and credit of a bank with gold or some other form of value to back-up American currency.

An interesting point Spufford reminds listeners of is the American’ anti-Catholic sentiment of the time.

One realizes how important Protestantism is in the foundation of America. The hero is almost killed by a mob that believes the traveler is a papist. Some historians have noted Protestantism is one of the deepest biases of early American citizens.

The reason for the hero’s appearance in New York is explained at last. To avoid discouragement of listeners, the purpose of the hero’s journey is not disclosed. “Golden Hill” is an interesting commentary on the tenor of an historic time, and it reveals some founding principles that trouble America to this day. The criticism of Spufford’s story is that it is too clever by half with a denouement too long in its revelation.

NO WAY OUT

Gorbachev freed the Russian economy and Putin capitalized on that freedom. However, both reached beyond their grasp and damaged Russia’s standing in the world.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

Blog: awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

A History of Russia: From Peter the Great to Gorbachev

By: Mark Steinberg, The Great Courses

Narrated by: Mark Steinberg

Mark David Steinberg (History Professor at University of Illinois specializing in the cultural, intellectual, and social history of Russia.)

Professor Mark Steinberg’s history of Russia is an informative tour of Russian history that gives some context to the perplexing, contradictory, and murderous behavior of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Though Steinberg’s history focuses on Tsarist Russia, a little research reveals why Putin argues Ukraine is historically a part of Russia.

Russia is an ancient nation that reaches back to the year 862.

The northern and southern lands were combined in 882 by Prince Oleg of Novgorod upon the seizure of Kiev in what is today the capital of Ukraine. Kiev becomes the capital of the combined lands. Eastern Christian religion is adopted from the Byzantine Empire by Russia in 988. Upon the Mongol invasion in 1237-1240, Russia’s size diminishes, and Russia’s capital moves to Moscow.

The first leader to be titled Tsar of Russia is Ivan the Terrible in 1547.

Ivan IV (Called Ivan the Terrible’s visage is forensically reconstructed by Mikhail Gerasimov)

Ukraine emerges as a nation in the mid-18th century, but large portions of the country remain under the control of Russia.

It is not until 1991, that Ukraine’s independence is recognized by America, Poland, and Canada.

Steinberg’s history addresses the time of Peter the Great through Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. What one hears from the lectures is the vacillation of Russian leadership from Europeanization to de-Europeanization. The primary interest of non-aristocratic Russians is in the political principle of socialism.

Autocracy is a common thread in Steinberg’s history of Russia. However, beginning with Peter the Great, that thread is frayed by changes that modernize Russian government management of its citizens. It remains autocratic but recognizes the country is behind Europe in its economic and cultural improvement.

Tsar Peter the Great (As Tsar from 1682 to 1721, Pyotr I Alekseyevich leads Russia as a harsh autocrat with the goal of defeating Ottoman and Swedish control of the Sea of Azov and the Baltic.

Steinberg explains Peter the Great’s objective is to create a new Russia by replacing its traditionalist and medieval social and political systems with enlightened public policies. He plans to modernize Russia by promoting education and industrialization. His objective is to emulate and compete with European modernization. The Russian Academy of Science and Saint Petersburg State University are founded in 1724. Peter the Great creates a governing Senate in 1711 and other institutions to improve the administration of the Russian autocracy.

Peter the Great dies unexpectedly and fails to designate an heir to the throne. Succession founders for several years with little progress toward modernization until Catherine II becomes Catherine the Great, empress of Russia from 1762 to 1796.

Catherine the Great II (Born 1729, dies in 1796 at age 67.)

Catherine the Great marries the grandson of Peter the Great who died months after becoming Emperor of Russia. Catherine the Great is of the same mind as Peter the Great in modernizing Russia. New Russian cities, universities, and theatres are created by Catherine the Great. With the help of fellow nobles, Grigory Orlov and Grigory Potemkin, and Russia’s generals of that time, Russia expands their territory and continues its Europeanization. Western philosophers like Voltaire become friends of Catherine the Great.

After Catherine the Great, her son Tsar Paul I takes control of the Russian government. Steinberg characterizes Paul I as a despotic ineffectual leader who projects an authoritarian and patriarchal image and reverses many of the liberal policies initiated by Catherine the Great. He is assassinated by the elite guards of the Russian military and his son, Alexander I, becomes Tsar.

With the rise of education, Steinberg explains the creation of what is called the “intelligensia”, a class of younger Russians interested in social change. Some were largely self-educated like Vissarion Belinsky, the son of a rural physician and Nikolai Gogol, born into the Ukranian family gentry (a class below aristocracy). Others were from the aristocratic class like Alekasndr Pushkin.

From left to right, Belinsky, Gogol, Pushkin–associated with the Russian Intelligesia in the early and mid-19th century.

Alexander I (reigned 1801-1825) is described by Steinberg as a leader of two minds that on the one hand reestablishes many of the reforms of his grandmother, Catherine the Great.

On the other hand, Steinberg suggests Alexander I resists revolutionary movements that were roiling Europe during his reign. Alexander, I joins Britain in 1805 to defeat Napoleon Bonapart. Alexander switches sides and forms an alliance with Napoleon in the Treaty of Tilsit in 1807. However, in 1810, Alexander abandons Napoleon over disagreement on Polish territory. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 is a disaster for the French and Russia gains territory in Finland and Poland.

Nicholas I (Reign 1825-1855, Grandson of Catherine the Great.)

Serfdom is a troubling social problem in Russia that is acknowledged by Catherine the Great but not resolved until after an 1861 decree for abolition by Alexander II. Though Catherine and Allexander II are not related, it is Alexander II who initiates what Catherine the Great recognized as the iniquity of Russian inequality. Though it is many years before the reality of abolition of Serfdom is truly addressed, Alexander II is the first to begin its reversal. His predecessor, Nicholas I did nothing to eliminate serfdom and in fact tried to re-establish aristocratic privilege.

Mid-day meal for peasants in 1860s Russia

Inequality in Russia, just as is true in America, remains a work in progress. Steinberg offers more detail of Russia’s drive toward modernity, but the next great change is of course the revolution of 1917. Steinberg explains Russia’s growing interest in socialism and its conflict with patriarchal rule. He notes the two major factions that wished to change the course of Russian history. One is the Bolshevik movement. The other is the Menshevik movement. But, before we get to 1917, it seems the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese war is important because of its relevance to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.

The last Tsar of Russia is Tsar Nicholas II. Nicholas II’s reign is from 1894 to 1917, after which his entire family is murdered by Bolshevik revolutionaries.

A precursor to the 1917 revolution is the 1905 uprising of Russian citizens who are unhappy with Tsar Nicholas II’s leadership. Growing inflation, poverty and hunger, a defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, and widespread discontent lead to a revolt. A workers demonstration leads to “Bloody Sunday”. An estimated 1,000 to 4,000 Russian citizens are murdered by Russian soldiers.

Of particular interest is the loss of the Russo-Japanese war. Both Russia and Japan want warm-water ports in the Pacific Ocean. A port that served that purpose is on the Korean peninsula, either off Manchuria or Korea. Tsar Nicholas’s inept management and the superior military actions of the Japanese defeat Russia.

The relevance of that defeat is the position Putin has put the Russian government in with the invasion of Ukraine. The question is whether Ukraine will be as successful as Japan in defeating Russia. The west must ask itself whether they have a dog in this fight or let Ukraine bear the brunt of an unjust war.

Tsarist Russia is ripe for revolution. Unhappiness of the general population of Russia is fertile ground for Vladimir Lenin and Julius Martov. A key difference between the two in creating committed followers, according to Steinberg, is that Lenin made joining his movement an exclusive opportunity based on the background of interested revolutionaries. In contrast, Martov allowed anyone interested the right to join his Mensheviks. To Steinberg, this is a key to the success of Lenin’s control of the revolution. The commitment of Lenin’s followers eventually took over the revolution. Though not suggested by Steinberg, one wonders if Martov’s Jewish religion might not have also contributed to Lenin’s success in taking over the revolution.

The exclusiveness of being a member of Lenin’s red party undoubtedly aided the ultimate success of the revolution because it required committed enforcers to rally the Russian people.

Steinberg explains Lenin clearly understood that authoritarian force would be required for communist’ socialism to succeed. The future of the revolution became dependent on a leader like Stalin who exemplified a party member that understood the importance of authoritarian command. The test of that truth comes in 1924 when Lenin dies from a brain hemorrhage.

Joseph Stalin (1878-1953, died at age 74, ruled Russia from 1929 to 1953.)

Authoritarian leadership, with its history of competent and incompetent Russian Tsars, is not new to the Russian people. With an improved education system in the 18th century, Steinberg explains even the intelligentsia accepted authoritarian rule. Adding to Russian’ acceptance of authoritarian rule is the belief that something had to change because life in Russia during Tsar Nicholas II’s rule is abysmal for the majority of Russian people.

Mikhail Gorbachev (1931-2022, died at age 91. Ruled the U.S.S.R. from 1985-1991 and served as President of Russia 1990-1991.)

Nearing the end of Steinberg’s lectures, the rise of glasnost with Mikhail Gorbachev is addressed. Between the death of Stalin and the rule of Gorbachev, 5 men ruled the U.S.S.R. Gorbachev wishes to keep the U.S.S.R. together but fails. His failure, in part, seems related to Steinberg’s history. Rather than glasnost, the U.S.S.R. seems to have needed a more authoritarian leader. Not in the sense of repression but in a demand to keep the U.S.S.R. together until the government’s effort at reform has time to be enacted. America had a civil war to prove it is one nation. That may have been a possibility with a more authoritarian Russian leader but that appears not to have been in the nature of Mikhail Gorbachev.

The U.S.S.R. dissolves in 1991. Since that dissolution, Russia has occupied some of the eastern territory of Ukraine and Crimea.

Though Steinberg does not fully address Vladimir Putin in his history of Russia, he sets the table for understanding why a reader/listener might think there is no way out for Vladimir Putin. The history Steinberg suggests Putin in one sense is the perfect transitional leader of the territorially reduced Russia. The firm hand of a secret police officer, with 16 years’ experience as a former KGB agent, and a position as Deputy Mayor of St. Petersburg’s seems an apt formula for success for a future President of Russia. Putin did well in his first years as President of Russia but seems to have made a career, if not life ending, error in his invasion of Ukraine.

Steinberg illustrates how Russia’s leaders range from enlightened to repressive managers of government. At different times in history, that management style served Russia’s economy and citizens, sometimes well and sometimes poorly. It is up to Russian citizens to decide which government actions and leaders best serves their needs.

From a western perspective, both Gorbachev and Putin served Russia well.

Gorbachev freed the Russian economy and Putin capitalized on that freedom. However, both reached beyond their grasp and damaged Russia’s standing in the world. With the invasion of Ukraine, Putin threatens Russia’s future. Today, there seems no way out for Putin. Russia without the countries that left the U.S.S.R. will never return without an economic incentive that can only be achieved with the advance of the Russian economy. If Russia wishes to be a successful socialist country, it needs a leader who cares about what the Russian people need, not what an authoritarian’ thinks.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: