Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia. Furthermore, the assassination caused Alexander III to rule in reactionary nature in which many counter-reforms were created to limit the impact of the Great Reforms done by his father. This supports the view that the People’s Will were highly unsuccessful, even in the taking out of Alexander II. It can be said that the only example in this period of effective political opposition was the October 1917 revolution, where, unquestionably, the Bolsheviks took power and let their political vision be known. They were extremely successful in both the short term and the long term.
i) Lenin’s role in the Bolshevik consolidation of power. The Coalition government, that had been in place since the February Revolution of 1917, had to face more and more problems. The Kornilov Affair and the July Days did not go to their best interest, and their popularity was simply going down the sewer by October. It was exactly that month that Lenin thought the time to be right for a Bolshevik takeover. So in October 1917 the Bolsheviks replaced the Coalition Government.
Lenin was exiled by Tsar Nicholas as an extremist and only made his way back to liberate Russia due to the First World War, in which he managed to sneak through the German frontline to help lead the Bolshevik uprising. At this moment in time the Provisional Government had already taken control after the popular revolution that had led to Tsar Nicholas’ abdication from the throne and eventual murder. However upon his return the role of liberator was immediately taken up with his April Theses aimed to gain support of the populace and put more sway behind the Bolshevik party, timely named “Peace, Bread Land.” In which he addressed the major issues of the population and the Proletariat whom he which knew would be the ones to help reach the end of capitalism due to the Marxist guidelines to the life line of capitalist society. This stance on policies also managed to place partisanship into Russia through opposing the Provisional Government on anything that was said. As Maxim Gorky said then “Lenin is a gifted man who has all the qualities of a leader”.
Causes of the Russian Revolution, Feb 1917 With a complex dynamic such as that of 1917 Russia there cannot be one single cause, we must examine whether it was the long term, medium term or short term causes that was the biggest catalyst in causing the revolution. The Tsarist Autocratic system had failed to industrialize Russia and prevented it from becoming a major European power. In 1905 the Russian people were not happy with every aspect of their life, which caused social unrest leading to a year of “revolution”. The war was not going well for Russia and with the Tsar in charge of the army, leaving the Tsarina to rule at home matters were only made worse. The War also had massive social and economic impacts on Russia that resulted in a strike that ended with a revolution.
So society is said to be meritocratic, as everybody can achieve if they want to. Durkheim (2002) Believes that there are fixed rules for all and by transmitting the norms and values across society, it is then fair and meritocratic. Marxists on the other hand believe that meritocracy is a myth and that it hides the truth of the inequality in society. Sociologists argue that the processes in school such as the hidden curriculum helps to keep society unequal. The hidden curriculum has a big influence on pupils, its one thing to teach the child educationally but if the child is treated unjustly (no voice) by the school system then a much more negative message is given to those pupils about the nature of society.
He writes about how those high up who brought, supported, and funded the Prussian-like system did so to only enforce having a guarantee of a "servile labor force" and "mindless consumers." Gattos supports the idea that it is more than obvious that schooling is simply meant to separate, demoralize and "dumb the people down." I would have to agree for the most part with John Gatto's argument. The boredom in schooling along with the monotone teachings and textbook answers is rather familiar. Although Gatto argues that
As an individual Lenin was extremely important in the October revolution. After he had been forced into temporary exile in Finland the remainder of the Bolshevik party leadership didn't seem to to press for an armed uprising. In fact they had attended a democratic congress, much to Lenin's chagrin, to maybe consider joining the Provisional Government (PG). After Lenin's return and the success of placing an armed revolution on the Central Committee's agenda some leading Bolsheviks still had grave doubts about whether this was a good idea; in fact Ziniovev and Kamenev went as far as to speak out against Lenin in a newspaper article, which alerted Kerensky to the imminent danger. What this shows is that without Lenin at their front haranguing them, the other Bolsheviks weren't so keen to rise up and take power.
If he is only supposed to be Marx then his interpretation is good because Marx died before the revolution. That is one way Orwell explained the revolution. A second way George Orwell interprets the Russian Revolution is the Battle of the Windmill. This is an interpretation of the Battle of Stalingrad. In this battle Frederick attacks Animal Farms windmill which breaks their treaty.
Later in the play, the audience is better able to appreciate the emotion and the catastrophe of Elizabeth’s lie to Danforth. When she tells him proctor is not a liar, because of what the audience knows from earlier scenes. We know that Elizabeth never lies; yet she does her thinking that she will save John, but he has already confessed. This moment comes as a huge shock to the audience and is powerful example of the use of dramatic irony. The symbolism of the crucible, which serves as the play’s title, is integral to the play.
HOW DID THE COLLAPSE OF THE USSR INFLUENCED THE GEOPOLITICAL STRUCTURE OF THE BLACK SEA AREA ? INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DIPLOMACY GHERASIM BIANCA-DANIELA SPE II The internal situation of Russia and its international position had changed rapidly between 1985 and 1988, but the real danger was not yet manifested. Many historians believe that the main factor to the dissolution of the USSR was the Cold War; it just took almost half a century for the real damage to occur. However, on Christmas day of the year 1991, the red flag waved over Kremlin for the last time. Few days before this important event had taken place, eleven states, that at that time were part of the Soviet Republic, had met in the capital-city of Kazakhstan and they all decided they will no longer be part of the USSR political entity, but they will now be part of the new interstate entity which was called the Commonwealth of the Independent States.