political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates (Ball and Dagger, 2019).”

To best explain the truth behind what “communism” actually is within the confines of Russia, historical context must be provided through both the history of communism itself as well as the rise of the Soviet Union. Through that context can the term be deconstructed, as Russia had done, to see just how twisted the ideology had become.

The concept of communism itself takes place from the works of Karl Marx, a noted political philosopher from the 19th Century. Living in exile in London with his family as a result of his rhetoric, he had published several works decrying the existing political systems and how they seemingly oppressed the lower class denizens in favor of maintaining the status of the wealthy. He felt that a new system was needed. In the third volume of his work, Das Kapital, he spoke of this new system by saying, “In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied (Fromm, 1961).” Under the socialist system, the proletariats (or lower and middle classes) was to overthrow the bourgeoisie (or upper class) and established a system in which the class system would be abolished, resources and power would be evenly distributed, and the capitalistic system would fall in favor of a society where everyone would be treated equally without difference. Communism would be a transitional state in which “Socialism (in its Marxist and other forms) returned to the idea of the “good society” as the condition for the realization of man’s spiritual needs (Fromm, 1961).”

For years on end, Marx’s words were heard but never implemented until the 1910s, when the Great War (or World War I as it is now known) took hold. As the globe was swept up in conflict, the Russian Empire under Tsar Nicholas II, the latest in the Romanoff dynasty, tried to seize the opportunity to make the country even more powerful and joined Britain, France, Italy, and (eventually) the United States in facing against the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. The country was initially united in its desires to defeat its enemies in the name of Mother Russia, but “National unity, however, could only be built on victory and, in that regard, Russia’s hopes were dashed early in the Great War. At Tannenberg and the First Battle of the Masurian Lakes, in 1914, Russia lost two entire armies (over 250,000 men) (Smele, 2011).” As a result of complications from Russia’s loss in the Russo-Japan War of 1905, as well as the country’s far outdated economic system and technological levels, it was losing the war. With no end in sight and with losses continuing to rise, the Russian population revolted, leading to a violent overthrow of the Tsar in 1917. Lead by Vladimir Lenin, a new Communist government was formed as a means to reform Russia into a fair and equal system for all of its denizens. However, any hopes for a new era became dashed after Lenin passed in 1924, and a power struggle amongst the party saw Joseph Stalin emerge the victor. Ruthless and unforgiving, his contemporaries noted, “Stalin is a Genghis Khan, an unscrupulous intriguer, who sacrifices everything else to the preservation of power. He changes his theories according to whom he needs to get rid of next (Essay, 2018).” Under his reign, Stalin established a dictatorship that saw him enact economic reforms in the midst of deadly famines and mass purges of those who opposed his rule. The regime he established lasted beyond his death in 1953 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Now that all that’s been established, it’s become clear that Russia could never truly claim itself as a communist government, nor could it have been. The earliest essays laid out the definitions of this new government, and they specified that “Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat (Engles, 1847).” Everything that happens between the rise of the proletariat and the establishment of this new system will, “Above all…have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society. It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association (Engles, 1847).” That was the endgame of a communist society, which would only be started when the revolution overthrew the existing government. In Russia’s case, they followed the revolution step, but forgot to continue forward in building this associative society. Upon Stalin’s rise, he instead twisted the intended doctrine of communism for his own ends; his most notable crimes came about in 1929, with “Forced collectivization of rural areas, decided at the November 1929 Central Committee of the Communist Party Plenum, [which] led to the liquidation of the kulaks as a social group, a process also known as “Dekulakization.” The collectivization campaign supported a double objective: firstly, to extract (term used in confidential instructions) all elements prone to actively oppose forced collectivization and secondly, to colonize vast inhospitable regions of Siberia, the Great North, the Ural and Kazakhstan. The first objective followed the Bolshevik belief, which had been clearly stated ever since they had taken power, that the peasantry, abounding with class antagonisms, concealed capitalist elements (kulaks) and was thus irrecoverably hostile to the regime. The second objective was in accordance with the 1st Five Year Plan (launched in 1929) emphasizing development of unpopulated but resource rich regions with penal or deported labor. Dekulakization mainly consisted in expropriation followed by deportation of millions of farmers (Werth, 2008).”

Knowing these crimes is to know that “Communist Nations” are communist in name only. Instead, they are actually dictatorships designed to repress the population to ensure a long and prosperous reign for its leaders, going out of its way to eliminate any threat to their power. In Russia’s case, while the intentions to establish a communist government (which is the subject of debate as to whether or not that such a feat is even possible), a single individual took those intentions and threw them out the window. Thus, neither the Soviet Union nor China, Cuba, Vietnam, or North Korea could ever make such claims as to being a true “Communist” nation. Individuals like Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Kim Jong Un operated under a false front, hiding their desire to rule behind intentions to make a more equal society, then going out of their way to suppress those who resist their rule. Whatever each of these governments might have been if said individuals didn’t come into the picture is impossible to say. Regardless, it certainly isn’t communism in any sense of the term.

References:

1. Ball, T. and Dagger, R. (2019). Communism. Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism
2. Fromm, E. (1961). Marx’s Concept of Socialism. Accessed April 10, 2019.  Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm
3. Smele, J. (March 10, 2011). War and Revolution in Russia 1914-1921. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/eastern_front_01.shtml
4. Essays, UK. (November 2018). The Rise Of The Soviet Union. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/the-rise-of-the-soviet-union-politics-essay.php?vref=1
5. Engles, F. (1847). The Principles of Communism. Accessed April 10, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#01
6. Werth, N. (March 14, 2008). Mass Crimes Under Stalin (1930-1953). Retrieved from https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/fr/node/2653

We’ve heard a lot of discussion about Mexico in the news as of late, primarily due to US President Donald Trump intending to construct a large wall across the border between us and our neighbor. What hasn’t been discussed that much is a serious crisis brewing within that country’s borders. Each day, many have died in a series of violent wars between gangs, drug cartels, and the government. In fact, “The report by the Citizens’ Council for Public Security and Criminal Justice found that five out of six of the world’s most violent municipalities were in Mexico, where homicides have risen to historic levels in recent years amid a military-led war against criminal groups (Linthicum, 2019).” Much of the situation stems from when former President Felipe Calderon used force to disrupt the cartels, only to face widespread retaliation from the gangs. With much of the country turned into a war zone, and with citizens fleeing north towards the United States to escape from such destruction, it stands as heartbreaking whenever reports of such horrific acts managed to make their way past the gatekeepers of the American media. But why does such violence happen on so regular a basis? To understand just what is happening in Mexico, it’s important to look at the statistics at just how bad the violence really is, how the cartels are perpetuating it through social media, and the breakdown in US-Mexican relations over the crisis.

Much of the violence can be attributed to attempts by the government to disrupt the gangs. Linthicum pointed out that Calderon’s strategy worked to disrupt some weaker groups, “[I]t also unwittingly spawned new ones who sought to capitalize on the destruction (Linthicum, 2019).” Since then, the violence has only gotten worse; A report from 2018 revealed that “Throughout the Calderón administration, INEGI reported 121,669 homicides, an average of over 20,000 people per year, more than 55 people per day, or just over two people every hour…Over the course of Peña Nieto’s five years in office, there have been 64 homicides per day, or more than 2.6 murders every hour. All told, since the start of the twenty-first century, more than a quarter of a million people have been murdered in Mexico (Calderón, Ferreira, and Shirk, 2018).” The situation has only continued to worsen, as “Tallies produced over the past decade by government, media, academic, NGO, and consulting organizations suggest that roughly a third to half of all homicides in Mexico bear signs of organized crime-style violence, including the use of high-caliber automatic weapons, torture, dismemberment, and explicit messages involving organized-crime groups (Calderón, Ferreira, and Shirk, 2018).” All the while, even with the efforts taken to disrupt the cycle of violence, little headway has been made.

A lot of the violence that the cartels have been committing has increased as a result of increased use in social media. Plevin reports that “In Guerrero, criminal groups create fake accounts and post hit lists on Facebook and WhatsApp, using nicknames and crude language to describe their targets. They also extort people, as they did in late November, when schools across the state closed for a month after criminal organizations threatened teachers over WhatsApp and demanded the instructors hand over a portion of their end-of-year bonuses (Plevin, 2019.)” With such social media platforms becoming increasingly popular, they have now become tools for the gangs to spread further violence. Their desire to control the media so as to continue their reigns also extends into traditional media. Calderón, Ferreira, and Shirk reported that, “Mexican journalists were at least three times more likely to be killed (.7 per 1,000) than the general population (.21 per 1,000) (Calderón, Ferreira, and Shirk, 2018).” In following the traditional pattern of power seekers looking to control the media so as to spread their propaganda, the cartels have sought to do just that by any means necessary. Though social media platforms have tried to ban them, the groups continue their efforts.

Additionally, there has been little, if any headway, in finding proper cooperation with the United States over the issue. “In his first year in office, U.S. President Donald Trump pushed the Mexican government to reinvigorate its counter-narcotics efforts, and placed a heavy emphasis on military-to-military cooperation, including new joint operations between the Mexican Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. Trump also pledged to increase U.S. security measures along the 2,000-mile Southwest border, inspecting eight prototypes for his proposed border “wall” and sending national guard troops to assist the U.S. border patrol, despite the fact that apprehensions at the border reached a 47-year low in 2017 (Calderón, Ferreira, and Shirk, 2018).” Both sides do wish to resolve the issue, but the distrust over Trump’s recent actions have seemingly put clout over America’s relationship with the Mexican government. While it may be difficult to say whether or not this violence is being allowed to happen as a result of this distrust, it certainly can’t be ruled out as a frighteningly real possibility.

References:

1. Linthicum, K. (March 4, 2019). Five of the six most violent cities in the world are in Mexico, report says. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-mexico-tijuana-violence-20190314-story.html
2. Calderón, L., Ferreira, O. R., and Shirk, D.A. (April 2018). Drug Violence in Mexico. University of San Diego. Retrieved from https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/180411_DrugViolenceinMexico-12mb.pdf
3. Plevin, R. (March 9, 2019). How Mexican cartels turn social media into tools for extortion, threats, and violence. Statesman Journal. Retrieved from https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2019/03/09/mexican-cartels-social-media-tools-extortion-violence/3112338002/

One of the most important aspects of a society is that it must be willing to change in order to continue thriving. “Managing change well is a continuous and ongoing combination of art and science that assures alignment of an organization’s strategies, structures, and processes (Worley and Vick, 2005).” Failure to do so can often result in a stagnation that negatively affects the performance of the individual, company, or country. As such, it is important that society finds a way to enforce a change that will aid it in not only adopting a new behavior, but induce a discouragement of the previous behavior. This process is known as organizational change, which is “[A] field of management theory that focuses on the stages that companies go through as they evolve. The principles of organizational change theory apply to both short- and long-term changes. When you know the general characteristics of the different stages of organizational change, you can adopt strategies appropriate to your own specific circumstances at the stage you’re currently navigating (Gartenstein, 2018).” This process, when used correctly, can help a person or company to overcome a period of stagnation or discourage poor behavior altogether. To understand how this process works, it’s best to see the varying steps that must be taken to enforce organizational change, how this change can be successful, and how it can be detrimental if not used correctly.

The process of organizational changes begins with a term called “unfreezing,” where a problem is located within the culture and then targeted for elimination. “Awareness of a problem may grow out of frustration with an existing system or a crisis that highlights its problems (Gartenstein, 2018).” This could be as simple as a poor habit of forgetting to check if the doors are locked each night after closing, or a much larger problem such as toxic behavior amongst coworkers. Once the problem is found, then it must be dealt with through a “transitional” period. Gartenstein recommends that, “Once you decide on a solution, you must get your staff on board with the changes. Communication is key, as well as listening to and respecting employee questions and concerns. Some of these issues may come from legitimate insights about the proposed innovations, whereas others can grow out of a natural resistance to change (Gartenstein, 2018).” This could mean that a memo is sent out to encourage employees to check the doors each night to see if they’re locked by having a reminder set on their calendars, or serious discussions are held with the staff to highly discourage the toxicity of their behavior lest they have their pay cut or lose their jobs. However, when approaching the situation, be careful not to try and cause more damage. “The best defense against doing no harm is to take a holistic approach. Too often, and with the best of intentions, managers change one facet of the organization without regard for the whole system. Many organizations need to develop better peripheral vision or whole systems thinking in recognition that all parts of the organization are connected directly or indirectly and that tinkering with one component exerts tension on other parts (Worley and Hick, 2005).” When significant progress has been made to eliminate the problem, “refreezing” takes place and the new behavior is permanently set in the culture.

Implementing organizational change has led to great success for multiple companies. The Walt Disney Company, the largest media studio in Hollywood, went through two periods of decline that saw the need to implement organizational change. The first occurred during the 1970s following the death of Walt Disney in 1966. Without the influence of their leader, many of the staff implemented a policy of “What Would Walt Do?” and tried to approach the developmental process of their films and theme park attractions as if he was still alive. However, the lack of innovation put the studio in a period of stagnation that nearly bankrupted the company. In 1984, “Saul Steinberg attempted to take over this company so that he could sell the corporation, in pieces, for more than the stock cost (Howell, 1997).” This, combined with the box office failure of the 1985 animated film The Black Cauldron, led to the ousting of the late Roy Miller as CEO and the subsequent installation of former Paramount CEO Michael Eisner in that position. Utilizing a “singles and doubles” strategy that would see smaller, lower-budget features released every year that would either make a decent profit or minimize losses if it failed, Eisner reinvigorated the company to a new period of unprecedented success during the 1990s. The period of time known as “The Disney Renaissance” saw their movies met with critical acclaim and high box office totals. However, another change was necessitated after Eisner’s tenure saw a saturation of lower-quality movies in the direct-to-video market, the critical and financial failures of several of Disney’s movies, and a change in public tastes from traditional animation towards the computer animation industry launched by Pixar, who’s relationship became strained with Disney. This decline saw the company nearly taken over by Comcast, who “[Proposed] a combination that would unite Comcast’s cable systems, the largest in the nation, with Disney’s film and TV studios and other properties (Fabrikant, 2004).” Soon afterwards, Eisner was ousted and replaced with Bob Iger, who sought to diversify the company’s portfolio that saw the acquisition of the Jim Henson Company, Pixar, Marvel Entertainment, Lucasfilm, and 20th Century Fox, leading to a period of unprecedented success that no other studio has obtained. Both of these periods were only made possible because the company saw a problem (a period of stagnation), transitioned to make changes (the ousting of the people behind the problem), and refroze itself when the problem was solved.

However, there lies a danger from failing to utilize organizational change. Remaining stuck in a period of behavior that could be detrimental in the long run has actually bankrupted companies, one such unfortunate business being the retail video-rental store Blockbuster. “In 2000, Reed Hastings, the founder of a fledgling company called Netflix, flew to Dallas to propose a partnership to Blockbuster CEO John Antioco and his team. The idea was that Netflix would run Blockbuster’s brand online and Antioco’s firm would promote Netflix in its stores. Hastings got laughed out of the room. We all know what happened next. Blockbuster went bankrupt in 2010 and Netflix is now a $28 billion dollar company, about ten times what Blockbuster was worth (Satell, 2014).” At its basis, this failure was because the company was unwilling to change from its brick-and-mortal model and switch to the online market because it thought it was too big to fail. Looking into this further, Blockbuster’s failure lies within its own system. According to Satell, the company relied heavily on late fees from customers that had failed to return their rentals on time, whereas the upstart Netflix offered a monthly subscription service for video rentals that could be sent back at any time. “Netflix proved to be a very disruptive innovation, because Blockbuster would have to alter its business model—and damage its profitability—in order to compete with the startup (Satell, 2014).” From there, the problem could be simply viewed as ego on Blockbuster’s part; it’s profits were high and it was the king of the rental service, so assuming that Netflix could beat them at their own game seemed foolish. Had they recognized this problem and discouraged underestimating the competition, they might have been more willing to make a deal and could have been around today. Instead, they remained frozen in their culture, and found themselves down to all but one store today.

References:

Worley, C., and Hick, Y. (2005). Leading and Managing Change. Graziado Business Review. Retrieved from https://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2010/08/leading-and-managing-change/. Accessed February 12, 2019.

Gartenstein, D. (June 27, 2018). What is the Meaning of Organizational Change? Chron. Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/meaning-organizational-change-35131.html. Accessed February 12, 2019.

Howell, Pamela (January 1, 1997). Walt Disney Company: The 1984 Attempted Takeover and the Recovery Plan Devised by Michael Eisner. Western Kentucky University. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=stu_hon_theses. Accessed February 12, 2019.

Fabrikant, G. (April 29, 2004). Comcast Pulls Disney Bid Off the Table, And Wall Street Breaths a Sigh of Relief. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/business/comcast-pulls-disney-bid-off-the-table-and-wall-street-breathes-a-sigh-of-relief.html. Accessed February 12, 2019

Satell, G. (September 5, 2014). A Look Back At Why Blockbuster Really Failed And Why It Didn’t Have To. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/09/05/a-look-back-at-why-blockbuster-really-failed-and-why-it-didnt-have-to/#2ff6e7731d64. Accessed February 12, 2019.

In a vast and ever growing world, communication is becoming more important than ever. This has especially become true of social media, which has seen a significant increase in use over the years. According to Chaffey (2018),  social media users have increased by 13%, especially in Northern Europe and North America. In addition, Chaffey (2018) also pointed out that Facebook has remained the most popular social media site on a global basis. However, with the rise in communication also rises the risk for bias. “Since the existence of online social media, citizens around the world use it to communicate beyond mass media blackouts…While social media are clearly relevant for news and culture, there are still many open questions about the potential, role, limitations, and biases of online social media. Social media overcome some limitations of traditional mass media that are commonly attributed as sources of biases (Carrascosa, Cuevas, Gonzalez, Azcorra, and Garcia, 2015).” As bias continues to make itself more prevalent, it’s important to avoid becoming biased as often as possible. To understand how much of a negative impact bias has on a global context, it requires an understanding of the very definition of bias itself, the role it plays in the basic communication model, and the consequences that bias can have on society.

Pannucci and Wilkins (2011) define bias as “[A]ny tendency which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question. In research, bias occurs when ‘systematic error [is] introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.'” In other words, bias is a personal belief one has that prevents them from accepting other viewpoints because they believe that their viewpoint is correct. Over the years, bias has become an increasing problem, especially in the media. According to Elejalde, Ferres, and Herder (2015), Bias in the media is a global phenomenon, not exclusive to one kind of economy or particular political system. As such, there is now a quickly growing body of empirical evidence on its existence.” Multiple news outlets, especially Fox News and MSNBC, have been accused of altering their reporting to tailor the messages towards their preferred political party of choice.

Beyond the news, bias can prove to be a problem in day-to-day communication. The basic communication model, as described by Nordquist (2018), involves a messenger and a receiver. The messenger codes a message to send to the receiver via a channel (i.e. email, text, face-to-face), where the receiver then decodes the message and tries to understand its context. They then have the option to provide feedback as an acknowledgement. However, both the messenger and the receiver can be biased in their messaging. For example, if two people are discussing a political subject, there is a good chance that both sides have an opinion on the subject, and both of them believe their opinions are right. When they talk about it, their messages will be coded to favor their opinions, and the feedback both will have towards the others opinion will be prejudiced since they may be the exact opposite of how the other feels. More than likely will the conversation leave both parties feeling that the other is being unfair and stubborn in their own opinions, leaving a negative perception. On a bigger scale, this could seem far worse. If the leaders of two different countries countries weren’t able to cooperate because of their biases in how things should be run, the relationship between the two would sour, and neither leader would view the other as a friend. Biases are more than just an obstacle to communication; they are an obstacle to having proper relationships.

Perhaps the most drastic consequences that biases can have is that it leaves a very negative impact on others. As Carrascosa, Cuevas, Gonzalez, Azcorra, and Garcia (2015) pointed out, “With respect to social media, previous works focused either on individual biases in news sharing, or on social and geographical factors or content sharing relevant to viral marketing and information technologies.” Over the past several years, I have noticed strong levels of bias in the media that have typically tended to portray “fans” as being in the right whenever a controversy over a film, television show, cartoon, video game, or novel erupted. Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, DC Comics, the Disney live action remakes, and many other projects have all had controversies erupt over their more recent installments. While these would vary in terms of what the controversies were over (i.e. story, character writing, casting decisions), many of the opinions were posted long before any of the installments came out, and remained firm in their negativity even after the projects were released. They had deemed the projects “failures” straight off the bat, and remained biased about the final version even if their thoughts about it were unwarranted. As a result of this bias, I have seen the media primarily focus on the negativity of these fans more so than the positive, and this in turn gives way to a permanent public perception that these fandoms are highly toxic.

No matter what the circumstance is, bias does nothing but create a bad situation. At its roots, bias leads others to believe their thinking is right and everything else is wrong, be it a person or a news network’s viewpoint. Because of this perceived stubbornness and close-mindedness, it leaves a negative perception that only grows bigger as time goes on. This leaves fanbases of media franchises being viewed as toxic, and the leaders of countries as the subject of mockery from the international community. While bias will never go away, it can be reduced when one acknowledges their own biases. With that said, they can work to overcome that bias and learn to keep an open mind when having conversation.

References:

Chaffey, D. (November 23, 2018). Global Social Media Research Summary 2018. SmartInsights. Retrieved from https://www.smartinsights.com/social-media-marketing/social-media-strategy/new-global-social-media-research/

Carrascosa, J.M., Cuevas, R., Gonzalez, R., Azcorra, A., and Garcia, D. (July 31, 2015). Quantifying the Economic and Cultural Biases of Social Media through Trending Topics. PLOS|ONE. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134407

Pannucci, C., and Wilkins, E.G. (August 1, 2011). Identifying and Avoiding Bias in Research. PMC. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917255/

Elejalde, E., Ferres, L., and Herder, E. (March 23, 2018). On the Nature of Real and Perceived Bias in the Mainstream Media. PLOS|ONE. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193765

Nordquist, R (October 18, 2018). The Basic Elements of the Communication Process. Bizfluent. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-communication-process-1689767