Comparison of Tsar and Communist Rule

Comparison of Tsar and Communist Rule Tsarist rule in the years 1856 to 1917 and Communist rule to the death of Lenin and the death of Stalin both depended on high degrees of central power and control by the state. The similarities between the two forms of government were therefore much greater than were the differences. How far do you agree with this judgement? Both Imperial and Soviet Russia have a long and well documented history of autocratic rule. However, Russian autocracy in its various forms has been far from consistent in either its organisation or outlook. It is this inconsistency in structure and policy which has given rise to differing schools of thought. On the one hand is the view that the fleeting and unfulfilled promises of both the liberalist-socialist February Revolution and Bolshevik October Revolution of 1917 witnessed nothing other than a transition from one form of despotism to another. On the other hand lies the theory that the Revolutions of 1917 caused the destruction of the Russian feudal system, empowering the masses to invest their authority in a democratically elected central representative form of government, at least in appearance if not in essence. In order to examine the two forms of government and their attributes, this essay uses a comparative approach in its discussion of the absolute monarchism of Tsars A lexander II, Alexander III and Nicholas II, and to the proletarian dictatorships of Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin. It will introduce the organisational structure of the monarchical and republican forms of government, and present a snapshot of Russian society in both cases. It will then analyse the similarities and differences of state control over various facets of society, and summarise these arguments in a logical conclusion. At the time of the accession to power of Tsar Alexander II in 1855, the Russian Empire was a hereditary absolute monarchy ruled by the Romanov dynasty. The Tsar promulgated and enforced laws personally, albeit acting on the counsel of trusted advisers. The Tsar also controlled the official state religion of Orthodox Christianity through the Holy Synod. Through his personally appointed counsellors, the Tsar wielded absolute power over most national institutions, including the military, the judiciary and the press. Subjects of the empire were segregated into different social classes on various rungs of the feudal ladder, from the nobility down through the clergy, merchants, cossacks and peasants. The majority of peasants were classed as serfs common labourers bound to the land, with no political representation. Imperial Russia had a proportionately larger population than its European counterparts of Great Power status, and the majority of its peasant population eked out a meagre exist ence below the poverty line. The Russian economy was based on a primitive form of agriculture, and as such economic growth was sluggish, lagging way behind the rapidly industrialising West, with which Russia was unable to compete financially. State intervention in industry tended to be more frequent than elsewhere in Europe, though in certain sectors it developed with private initiative, often foreign capital. In any case, due to the late onset of industrialisation, Russia remained largely agricultural until well into the twentieth century. Certain aspects of state control were relinquished in the latter half of the nineteenth century, particularly during the reforms of the 1850s and 1860s, in the areas of government, education and the judiciary. In 1861 Alexander II announced the emancipation of around 20 million serfs. Local commissions controlled by the landowning gentry gave rise to emancipation by giving land and certain privileges to the serfs, though stopping short of freedom per se. Very few former serfs moved outside their village commune, and they were required to make redemption payments to the government over a period of almost fifty years. Landowners were compensated in the form of government bonds. Local government was reformed shortly afterwards in 1864, whereby the European part of Russia was reorganised into different regions and districts in a devolution exercise. Local government became fully responsible for health, education and transport, signifying a move away from centralised power. In the same year, judicial reforms took place in most urban centres. The major change was the introduction of juries into the courtroom. The judiciary functioned fairly well, though the government lacked the financial clout to enforce the measures, meaning that local peasant justice remained relatively unaffected, with little interference from the central government. State control remained fairly strong in the military, marked by the government’s desire to effect the transition from a large standing army to a reserve army, made possible through the training of the newly emancipated serfs. In other areas, the State bank was founded in 1866, all school officials remained nominally subordinate to the Ministry of Education, and censorship laws were relaxed in the 1860s. Soviet Russia presents a more modern, if not altogether different, concept of state control. In February 1917, a Provisional Government of liberal socialists ousted the autocracy with the intention of establishing a democratic form of government in a war-ravaged society. At the same time, the radical Bolsheviks representing the working classes called for nationwide socialist revolution, and eventually seized power from the Provisional Government in November of the same year. Only after a long and bloody fratricidal war did the Bolsheviks consolidate power and establish a one-party Communist state, which officially came into being in December 1922. The Soviet government initially attempted to centralise the economy through Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP). Threatening encirclement from capitalist powers, Lenin stressed the importance of rapid industrialisation through direct state control, as dictated by Marxist doctrine. However, these efforts did not come to fruition, and some private enterprise was permitted to coexist with the heavily nationalised industrial sector. Yet following Stalin’s accession to power in 1928, the state assumed control of all existing businesses and initiated intensive programmes of industrialisation in the form of three pre-War five-year plans. In agriculture, the state seized peasants’ property to establish collective farms. The plan proved hugely unpopular and caused much hardship. Millions of common labourers starved to death or were murdered during periods of forced collectivisation. Social unrest continued well into the 1930s as Stalin embarked on a purge of his own party. This gave rise to a campaign of terror not dissimilar to that witnessed in Revolutionary France, leading to the imprisonment and/or execution of anyone who was suspected of being an opponent of the Communist regime. Literally millions of citizens were expunged from all sections of society. However, there were certain advantages of this rigorous state control. Stalin’s industrialisation programme required that workers be adequately educated. This led to an increase in the number of schools. More importantly, for the first time women were given equal status in education and employment as men, marking an improvement in household income and family life. Universal access to health care gradually became readily available, increasing the standard of living and life expectancy. Engineers, architects and medical personnel were sent abroad to learn new technologies, and exchange programmes enabled foreign input into the expanding Soviet knowledge base. The outbreak of the Second World War served only to intensify the Stalinist system of state control. Forced labour rapidly accelerated Soviet industrial output, allowing the USSR to outstrip Nazi Germany’s initial advance, while conscription swelled the ranks of the Red Army, enabling the military to push back the eastward thrust of the German army in the winter of 1941-42. The post-War era saw no reduction in this trend as the Soviet government sought to rebuild the infrastructure decimated by war and roll out its policy of extreme levels of state control over the countries of Eastern Europe placed in its sphere of influence in the post-War settlement. It was not until the death of Stalin in 1953 and the accession to power of Nikita Khrushchev that repressive controls over government and society were eased. So how do the two forms of pre-Revolutionary monarchical and post-Revolutionary republican autocracy compare? Let us first examine the political ideologies on which the two forms of state centrism were founded. The initially obvious assessment is that they were almost as far apart on the political spectrum as is possible, from the ultra-conservative monarchical despotism of Imperial Russia to the extreme left-wing one-party Communism of the Soviet Union. The monarchical despotism of the Tsars was concentrated in the person of the Emperor alone. He functioned as both Head of State and Head of Government, and was responsible for all branches of government. The serf majority of the population had no political rights or representation, and only the most fortunate amongst the nobility and intelligentsia had sufficient status to make their views heard. Admittedly, given the vast expanse of Russia and its poor transport and communication links under the Tsars, logistics would always dictate that imperial power was unlikely to filter down to every citizen from the Baltic to the Pacific. However, individual liberties remained severely restricted, if not non-existent. On the other hand, Soviet Russia was a proletarian dictatorship in pursuit of the ideal of world revolution. The Bolshevik effort in the civil war was founded on the belief that only a coherent and secretive organisation could overthrow the government. Following the revolution, this belief was transposed to the machinery of government, in that only this kind of organisation could resist foreign and domestic enemies. According to Marxist-Leninist doctrine, this revolutionary esprit could only be achieved through the efforts of a Communist party which assumes the role of revolutionary vanguard, achieving its aims through a disciplined organisation known as democratic centralism, where party officials discuss proposals but do not question decisions once they have been made. Similarly, the electorate were simply expected to approve of the laws enacted and policies pursued by the party they had voted into power. Any form of dissent, either expressed or implied, was punished in the most se vere manner. Let us now turn to the practicalities of state control. As noted previously, levels of state control in Imperial Russia witnessed a marked decline throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. Admittedly, continued state control and supervision, heavy financial obligations, and communal regulation of peasant affairs made life in the countryside seem not entirely different from that prior to the emancipation. The gentry still filled high posts in the army and bureaucracy and occupied a dominant position in the new institutions created by the reforms; and government officials viewed independent actions on the part of Russian society with much the same suspicion and distrust that they had previously. However, the reforms made a genuine difference, in the sense that the granting of personal liberty to the peasants freed them from total dependence on the landowning gentry, and it encouraged social mobility. The educated minority of the lower classes of society were able to engage in education and banking. This new direction in government policy gave Russian life new dimensions and possibilities of social and economic development. Either way, this revolution from above certainly marked a watershed in Russian history, and fuelled the embryonic Revolutionary movement in its build-up to the events of 1917. A measure of the success of the reforms is that the government survived them unscathed, unlike those of Gorbachev in the 1980s. The immediate post-Revolutionary period witnessed conditions which were not dissimilar. Lenin’s Communist government faced the immediate challenges of severe economic recession and working class hostility. Alienated by the brutalities of civil war and famine, peasants, urban workers and many soldiers demanded the creation of a more democratic socialist government. The Politburo were unwilling to compromise, maintaining a one-party state and demanding total discipline and unity within the party. Economically, however, direct methods of mobilisation were abandoned, allowing a revival of private trade on a small scale. These changes paved the way for the NEP, which in turn led to an increase in agricultural and industrial production. Critics of the NEP complained that flourishing markets in agricultural produce benefited a revived class of rural entrepreneurs as opposed to the urban proletariat. They insisted that the government find the resources to invest in industrial growth t o counter this trend. Unable to secure these resources, the government became increasingly unpopular amongst the peasantry, who still made up over 80 per cent of the population. Following Lenin’s death and Stalin’s consolidation of power, the government dealt with this crisis by experimenting with the direct, coercive mobilisation of resources from the countryside. This collectivisation marked the end of market relations in the countryside, meaning the government could determine what happened to rural produce and where the profits were invested. By 1934 the government had successfully taken control of the huge human and material resources of the countryside. The collectivisation of these resources were subsequently diverted to the towns in Stalin’s intense programme of industrialisation. Only a hugely powerful centralised state was capable of such a programme, and it is no accident that it was managed by a highly coercive and autocratic state system. Building on a long tradition of Russian autocracy, Stalin created a modernised autocracy in which his authority grew to the point where he no longer depended on the party, but established a unique system of personal rule. The atmosphere of crisis created by collectivisation and party purges generated a crucible of paranoia which strengthened the leadership by making any form of opposition look like treachery. However, despite this severity, the Communist government enjoyed much popular support, and many ordinary citizens accepted the patriotic promises of Stalinist propaganda. In conclusion, it would appear that while the ideologies on which Imperial and Soviet Russia were founded lay at opposite ends of the political spectrum, the machinery of government operated in much the same way in both cases. It is difficult to assess which form of government was more autocratic, and it would be unwise to assume that the political currents at the beginning of the period in question form a valid basis for comparison with those at the end. However, it is safe to assert that the two forms of autocracy were as intense as they were efficiently managed. There were certainly huge differences in the ultimate aims and objectives of the two forms of government. While Imperial Russia strove to secure the succession of the Romanov dynasty through maintaining the hereditary monarchy, Soviet Russia sought to achieve world revolution in pursuit of the Communist ideal. However, the similarities in the intensity of state control appear more striking than these ideological difference s. While the concentration of government dominance appeared greater under Communism, especially during the Stalinist era, the state in both cases to all intents and purposes retained almost full control over agriculture, industry, the military, education and the judiciary. In this respect, the similarities seem to be greater than the differences. It is not without a certain sense of irony that such state control was nominally approved by the electorate in Soviet Russia, in spite of the hardships it often caused. Bibliography David Christian, Imperial Soviet Russia – Power, Privilege the Challenge of Modernity (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997) Terence Emmons, The Russian Landed Gentry and the Peasant Emancipation of 1861 (Cambridge: CUP, 1967) J. N. Westwood, Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992 (London: OUP, 1973) Edward C. Thaden, Russia Since 1801: The Making of a New Society (New York: Wiley, 1971) US Library of Congress, Federal Research Division Country Studies Series (Russia), http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html

Bullying And Teen Suicide

Bullying is done purposefully to hurt, threaten or scare someone. It can be done orally with words or physically with actions. One or more persons can involve in bullying and degree of cruelty also varies. Bullying can include name calling, teasing, stopping the person from going where he/she want to go or from doing what he/she want to do, or injuring someone physically.Bullies usually have average or above-average self-confidence, look for recognition or attention from peers, find pleasure from causing injury to others, make themselves look strong, look to control other people or conditions, and are expressed as hot-tempered and rash (Zirpoli, 2008). Bullies are common among students that come from families having little tenderness or affection. Parents of bullies monitor their children very little and use discipline inconsistently. Parents of bullies also employ inflexible discipline styles, where physical punishment is very common (DeHann, 1997).Students often present the same be havior observed within their home atmosphere including rude behavior displayed by parents toward each other or toward others. Bullies are not generally model students. Very frequently, they are not successful in school and have poor relations with their teachers. Bullies have trouble with social skills, not capable of making friends easily, and do not even know healthier ways to connect to others. Bullying effects Being a victim of bullying is very traumatic for children. Short term effects of bullying include developing hatredness to go to school.Many victims start to disbelieve all their classmates at school and face problems in making friends. Some victims can develop physical illness or depression. The long term effects of bullying include damage of child’s health that continues into adult life. It increases anxiety, damages self-esteem and can cause severe depression. Some children even get suicidal thoughts and commit suicide. The Phoebe Prince, 15, a freshman at South Hadley High School in Western Massachusetts, is an example of teen suicide for bullying.Prince hanged herself at her home on January 14th, 2010 as she was subjected to physical mistreatment and verbal harassment on that day (CNN, 2010). Earlier that day, she had been harassed at South Hadley High School library when she was studying. The harassment took place in front of a staff member and a lot of students, but nobody of whom informed it until after the death of the girl. Phoebe was also even harassed when she was walking through the school hall on that day and was walking on the street towards her house.The bullies also threw a canned drink at her while she was walking home. One male and two female students were involved in the harassment on January 14th. The harassment has been provoked by the group’s disapproval with short dating connection of Phoebe with a male student. But, that day’s events were not the only reason for the death of Phoebe; she has been harassed verbally and threatened to harm physically since three months until the death of hers. The group, who bullied Phoebe, crossed their normal limits and exceeded the normal teenage related quarrels.The bullying group was also decided to disgrace her and to make it impracticable for Phoebe to continue at school. She has also been harassed on the internet using social networking sites. But, the bullying was mainly conducted on school premises during school hours (Eckholm & Zezima, 2010). Therefore, bullying can have serious negative consequences, even death, which happened in Phoebe Prince case. Phoebe took her own life to escape from bullying in school, on Face Book, and through text messages. Therefore, anti-bullying laws need to be implemented and bullies should be punished severely.References CNN (2010). More students disciplined following girl’s suicide. Retrieved March 31, 2010 from http://www. cnn. com/2010/CRIME/03/30/massachusetts. bullying. suicide/index. html DeHann, L. (1997). Bullies. Retrieved February 1997 from http://www. ag. ndsu. edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs570w. htm Eckholm, E. & Zezima, K. (2010). 6 teenagers are charged after classmate’s suicide. Retrieved March 29, 2010 from http://www. nytimes. com/2010/03/30/us/30bully. html Zirpoli, T. J. (2008). Bullying behavior. Retrieved from http://www. education. com/reference/article/bullying-behavior/

Macbeth, By William Shakespeare - 1409 Words

â€Å"Fair is foul, and foul is fair: Hover through the fog and filthy air.† On October 17th, I had the pleasure of going to see Macbeth performed at the Shakespeare Tavern. Along with its reputation for being â€Å"cursed,† Macbeth is also known as one of the crown jewels of William Shakespeare’s repertoire. In my opinion, the central concept of this particular retelling of the play was the murkiness of character. Throughout the play, the many characters go through fierce temptation and strife, and none truly rise above moral contention. Also known to many as The Scottish Play, the classic tragedy is a playground of ambition and contradiction. Driven to become the new King after a prophecy by the mysterious Three Witches, Macbeth realizes that he must kill all and any that get in his way. His clever wife, Lady Macbeth, is instrumental in his ascension to the throne, egging him on whenever he begins to think that he has gone too far. Though he successfully kills and succeeds King Duncan, he can fund no peace while his friend, Banquo, still lives. More murder ensues and the bloodied ghost of Banquo appears to Macbeth. Lady Macbeth s conscience soon begins to torture her and she imagines that she can see her hands covered with blood. Her suicide is largely overlooked by her husband, who is now consumed by further prophecy of his own downfall. Macduff, who has been plotting an uprising against the new king, kills Macbeth. In the end Macbeth’s overconfidence paved the way to his ownShow MoreRelatedMacbeth by Willia m Shakespeare770 Words   |  3 PagesThe play Macbeth is written by William Shakespeare. It is believed to be written between 1603 and 1607 and set in eleventh century Scotland. It is also believed to be first performed in 1606. It is considered to be one of the darkest and most powerful tragedies. Macbeth, set in Scotland, dramatizes the psychological and political effects produced when evil is chosen to fulfill the ambition of power. The Tragedy of Macbeth is Shakespeare’s shortest tragedy and tells the story of Macbeth, a ScottishRead MoreMacbeth, By William Shakespeare1425 Words   |  6 PagesMacbeth Just Can’t Wait To Be King Everyone has a quality that they do not like about themselves. Some people struggle to be social, others may be too controlling of people. The list goes on and on, but the point is that everybody has a particular quality that they must learn to control or else that particular quality can get out of hand. Of course, one could write a list of characters that have major flaws. There is no better example than William Shakespeare’s character, Macbeth, in The TragedyRead MoreMacbeth, By William Shakespeare1203 Words   |  5 PagesMacbeth is a play based on King James I, it was written by William Shakespeare, however this play isn’t a king and queen fairy tale, but it’s a play about greed and guilt, chaos and murder and three evil witches who use prophecies to influence Macbeth to do bad things, using flattery would instigate his inner ambition to become king, which in the end doesn’t lead to a very happy ending. Shakespeare’s, Macbeth, was written in the early Jacobean period. During those times, women had no power, theyRead MoreMacbeth, By William Shakespeare1243 Words   |  5 PagesIn William Shakespeare’s â€Å"Macbeth†, the author portrays the main character Macbeth as a very tortured and flawed individual whose actions only serve to further unravel him. He is conflicted and power hungry, which drives him to perform evil murders and become a ruthless person. Macbeth’s moral compass is not resilient enough to withstand his wife’s manipulations and he is provoked to act on his malicious thoughts of murder. The author explores the terrible effects that ambition and guilt can haveRead MoreMacbeth, By William Shakespeare Essay1487 Words   |  6 Pagesreaction†. Macbeth by William Shakespeare is a tale which illuminates the consequences of violating the â€Å"Natural order†, the hierarchy of beings in the universe. When Macbeth, a warrior wel l-known for his courage and bravery, murders King Duncan acting on his unchecked ambition to claim the throne, the order was disrupted, the result†¦chaos. Shakespeare uses symbolism to illustrate the atmosphere of the play as the natural order is flung into a state of turmoil. These techniques used by Shakespeare is usedRead MoreMacbeth, By William Shakespeare1483 Words   |  6 Pagesdifferent references in the play of how a king deals with power and if they use it for better or for their own personal gain. In the play Macbeth, by William Shakespeare, Macbeth’s obsession with his journey to power leads to his failure. This obsession is demonstrated through the prophecies, the murder of his best friend Banquo, and his own demise. Macbeth demonstrates that he is incapable of mastering the power and responsibilities of being a king. This is indicated throughout the play with theRead MoreMacbeth, By William Shakespeare1045 Words   |  5 PagesBlood appears in only two forms, but many times in Macbeth by William Shakespeare; between the war scene at the beginning of the play and the lifting of Macbeth’s severed being lifted by Macduff at the end. It can be said that Macbeth could have been written in blood that there is such a large amount. What is unique about blood in Macbeth is that the â€Å"imaginary blood† or the guilt that the murderer feels plays more of a role of understand and amplifying the theme of the play, that blood is guiltRead MoreMacbeth, By William Shakespeare1431 Words   |  6 Pages Macbeth, though originally a valiant and prudent soldier, deteriorates into an unwise king whose rash decisions conclusively end in the atrophy of his title, power, and position. Several facto rs contribute to the downfall of Macbeth, which produce a contagion effect and ultimately end with his demise. He receives help from his â€Å"inner ambitions and external urgings† which result in his downfall (Bernad 49). The â€Å"external urgings† consist of the weird sisters who disclose his prophecies, which enlightenRead MoreMacbeth, By William Shakespeare2060 Words   |  9 Pagesthe green one red Macbeth Quote (Act II, Sc. II). Out, out, brief candle! Life s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Macbeth Quote (Act V, Scene V). These quotes have been taken from play Macbeth written by William Shakespeare. Like these quotes there are hundreds and thousands of such heart touching quotes written by Shakespeare in his many differentRead MoreMacbeth, By William Shakespeare1320 Words   |  6 PagesThe oxford dictionary definition of guilt, 1, the fact of having committed a specified or implied offence or crime, 1.1, a feeling of having committed wrong or failed in obligation. In Macbeth written by William Shakespeare, Macbeth, the titular character and his wife Lady Macbeth kill the King in order to become King and Queen themselves, this came with consequences which are still relevant in society today. The guilt they felt and the relevance to sleeplessness are common topics almost four hundred

Major Highlights of the Civil Rights Movement